affiliate_tradedoubler-advertiser_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool returns Click records and optionally filters by programme/date, but it does not mention pagination (cursor/offset), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'recent' means in terms of default date ranges. This leaves notable gaps for a read 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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the function, providing a use case, and noting the return type plus a complementary tool. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of 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?

Given no output schema and 7 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required 'brand' parameter, pagination via cursor/offset, or how to specify date ranges. It also does not mention whether the returned Click records include necessary fields for debugging. The description is adequate for a high-level understanding but insufficient for accurate invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at parameter meanings via 'programme and date' (mapping to programmeId and from/to), but leaves the required 'brand', 'limit', 'cursor', and 'offset' unexplained. The description does not clarify that 'brand' is mandatory or describe how filters interact.

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 action ('List recent affiliate clicks'), the resource ('Tradedoubler (Advertiser)'), and the optional filters ('programme and date'). It also provides example use cases, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_transactions or list_programmes.

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 says to use this for traffic-side debugging with concrete example questions ('are my links being clicked at all?'). It also recommends pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like the non-advertiser Tradedoubler list_clicks.

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