affiliate_tapfiliate_list_programmes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an array of Programme records and that it includes both joined and available programmes. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or that results are scoped by the required `brand` parameter. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 core action, and each sentence adds value: purpose, usage triggers, and return/paired tools. There is no fluff or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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?

Despite a clear purpose and usage guidance, the description is incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. It fails to explain the required `brand` parameter or the meaning of the filter/pagination parameters, and it does not describe the Programme record structure. The agent cannot reliably construct a correct invocation based on this description alone.

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 compensates not at all. The required `brand` parameter is never mentioned, and there is no explanation of `limit`, `cursor`, `offset`, `search`, `status`, or `categories`. An agent reading the description would not know what arguments to supply or how they affect the results.

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 opens with a clear action ('List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Tapfiliate') and adds scope by including available-to-join programmes. It provides example user queries ('which merchants am I working with?') that distinguish it from other list_programmes tools across networks, and it names related Tapfiliate tools (get_programme, list_transactions) for drill-down context.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this when the user asks...') and gives concrete example phrasings. It also indicates how it pairs with get_programme and list_transactions, providing a sense of alternative/complementary tools. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough.

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