affiliate_sovrn-commerce_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning an array of Programme records and the 'available to join' scope, which adds some nuance. However, it does not explain pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or how to distinguish joined vs available programmes, leaving notable gaps for a list tool.

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 concise, front-loaded with action and purpose, and every sentence adds value. It includes usage examples, scope clarification, and related tools without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 6 underdocumented parameters, the description partially compensates by stating the return type and offering usage context. However, it remains incomplete because it omits parameter guidance and key behavioral details like pagination, leaving an agent with insufficient information to effectively use all features.

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?

The input schema has 6 parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The description adds no meaning to limit, cursor, offset, search, status, or categories, failing to compensate for the complete lack of parameter 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 Sovrn Commerce, including both joined and available ones. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific network and provides example user queries. The mention of pairing with get_programme and list_transactions further clarifies its role.

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 example queries that trigger this tool and states natural pairings with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity. While it doesn't explicitly say 'don't use for other networks,' the network-specific naming and examples make the appropriate context clear.

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