affiliate_shopmy_list_programmes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type ('array of Programme records') and scope (joined or available programmes), but does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or how the 'available to join' vs 'joined' distinction is controlled. This is partial but not rich behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words: first sentence states the purpose, second gives usage examples, third describes return and complementary tools. The description is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 6 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the high-level purpose and return type but omits essential invocation details like how to filter by status, paginate with cursor/offset, or use search and categories. The user cannot fully understand how to use 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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the 6 parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The only indirect hint is 'or which are available to join,' which could relate to status but is not explained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 lists affiliate programmes on ShopMy with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate programmes'). It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the ShopMy network and contrasts with get_programme and list_transactions, making its unique role clear.

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?

The description gives explicit usage triggers with example user queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on ShopMy?') and recommends pairing with get_programme and list_transactions. It lacks an explicit when-not, but context and alternatives are strongly provided.

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