affiliate_tolt_get_programme_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only via 'Fetch' and describes the return type, but it omits potential side-effects (none expected), authentication expectations, pagination behavior, and date-range constraints. Given the minimal behavioral complexity, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with purpose, metrics, usage triggers, and companion tools. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return type but omits parameter semantics, pagination, and filter behavior. It is more complete than a bare fetch, but not fully adequate for complex parameter handling.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate, but it only hints at 'by date' and 'per-publisher' without explaining brand, programmeId, publisherId, limit, cursor, or offset. The required brand parameter is not explicitly documented in the description, leaving parameter semantics largely uncovered.

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 specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource (per-publisher performance for the brand's programme at Tolt) plus the exact metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'per-publisher rollup' and naming the network 'Tolt'.

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 states when to use with example user queries ('how is each publisher performing on Tolt?') and gives integration guidance with list_media_partners and list_transactions for drill-down. This provides clear context for selection vs alternatives.

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