affiliate_shopmy_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns Click records and is for debugging, but does not mention read-only behavior, pagination (despite cursor/offset parameters), auth requirements, or side effects. The description adds some behavioral context but lacks important operational details.

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?

Three sentences, well-structured: the first states what the tool does, the second provides use cases, and the third covers return type and pairing. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description gives a clear purpose, usage context, and a hint of return type, but given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, it is not fully complete. It omits pagination behavior, parameter constraints, and detailed return structure, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description only mentions filtering by 'programme and date' (implying programmeId and to/from) but does not explain limit, cursor, offset, or date formats. With 6 undocumented parameters, the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions, leaving pagination semantics unexplained.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists recent affiliate clicks on ShopMy with optional programme/date filtering, using specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from siblings like list_transactions by naming ShopMy and its traffic-side debugging focus.

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?

Explicitly states use for traffic-side debugging with concrete example questions ('are my links being clicked at all?', 'where is traffic going on ShopMy?'). Also provides alternative pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, which tells the agent when not to use this alone.

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