affiliate_tradedoubler-advertiser_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the return is an array of Programme records and that results may include joined or available programmes. However, it omits important behavioral traits such as pagination semantics, filtering behavior, and whether the operation is read-only or requires specific auth, which are not covered by annotations.

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 purpose, followed by usage triggers and complementary tools. Every sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy or 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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of the required 'brand' parameter, nor does it describe output structure beyond 'an array of Programme records'. It covers when to use the tool but not the operational details needed to invoke it correctly.

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 for parameter meaning, but it does not. It mentions no parameter except by implication via 'brand' in the required fields, and leaves limit, cursor, offset, search, status, and categories unexplained. The self-evident names provide minimal guidance, but 'brand' is ambiguous, and the description fails to clarify how filtering or pagination works.

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 lists affiliate programmes for Tradedoubler (Advertiser), differentiating it from the sibling tradedoubler_list_programmes via the '(Advertiser)' qualifier. It provides concrete example user queries and a specific verb-resource pairing ('List affiliate programmes'), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 example phrasings. It also suggests complementary tools (get_programme for drill-down, list_transactions for activity), providing clear guidance on workflow integration and alternatives.

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