affiliate_tapfiliate_list_clicks

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 Click records and supports optional filtering, but does not explain pagination, date range interpretation, auth requirements, or rate limits. 'Recent' is vague.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage guidance and output type efficiently.

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?

This 7-parameter tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only covers purpose, basic filters, and the return type. It fails to explain the required brand parameter or pagination semantics, leaving the agent under-informed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains 'programme and date' filters (mapping to programmeId, from, and to), but omits the required 'brand' parameter and says nothing about limit, cursor, or offset.

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 verb+resource: 'List recent affiliate clicks on Tapfiliate.' It also distinguishes from siblings by framing it as traffic-side debugging and explicitly referencing list_transactions for conversion comparison.

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 provides explicit usage context ('traffic-side debugging') with concrete example questions ('are my links being clicked at all?') and recommends pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool.

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