affiliate_tapfiliate_get_programme_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation via 'Fetch' and 'Returns', but does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or default date ranges. Some context is provided (returns ProgrammePerformanceRow records), but it lacks depth.

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 purpose, then usage triggers, then return type and related tools. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps: no parameter semantics, no pagination details, and only a vague mention of return records. However, it does provide usage examples and sibling tool relationships, so it is partially complete.

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 schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only indirectly refers to date range and publisher filtering, and does not explain key parameters like brand, programmeId, limit, cursor, offset, or how they relate. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct a call.

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 fetches per-publisher performance data with specific metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission) by date, using the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'brand's programme at Tapfiliate'. This distinguishes it from generic get_programme tools.

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?

It explicitly provides example user queries that should trigger this tool, and notes complementary tools (list_media_partners for publisher IDs, list_transactions for drill-down), giving clear guidance on when to use it versus alternatives.

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