affiliate_shareasale_list_programmes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns 'an array of Programme records' and notes the dual scope of 'joined' or 'available to join' programmes. However, it does not mention potential side effects (none expected for a list), auth requirements, pagination behavior, or how the 'status' parameter affects results, leaving gaps for a safe agent invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by usage examples and related tools. It is compact and avoids excessive detail, though the phrase 'affiliate programmes' slightly repeats the tool name. Overall, it earns its place without waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list tool with no output schema and no parameter docs, the description covers the return type and usage context, and points to sibling tools. However, it omits parameter semantics and pagination details, which are necessary for full autonomous invocation. The completeness is adequate but not thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). It provides no parameter-level details; the only hint is the mention of 'joined or available,' which vaguely relates to 'status.' This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct queries.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on ShareASale (or which are available to join).' This provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings by naming ShareASale and publisher context. Example queries further clarify the intended use.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'Use this when the user asks "which merchants am I working with?", "what programmes do I have on ShareASale?", or wants a partner inventory.' It also names complementary tools: 'pairs naturally with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity,' which helps an agent choose between alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.