affiliate_tradedoubler_list_programmes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns 'an array of Programme records' and covers both joined and available programmes, but omits details on pagination behavior, authentication, rate limits, or default filtering. This is a read-only list, so less disclosure is needed, but some behavioral context is still missing.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only high-value information: purpose, example queries, and related tools. No fluff or redundant details.

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?

Purpose and usage are well covered, but the tool has 6 parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. The description fails to explain parameter semantics or return value structure beyond 'array of Programme records', leaving the agent under-informed for actual 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, but it never mentions any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The agent is left without guidance on how to filter, paginate, or interpret the meaning of status/categories, making parameter usage completely opaque.

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 uses a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Tradedoubler (or which are available to join)'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list_programmes tools by naming Tradedoubler, and from get_programme by being a list operation.

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 provides explicit trigger examples ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Tradedoubler?') and names complementary tools (get_programme for drill-down, list_transactions for activity). This gives the agent clear when-to-use guidance and alternatives.

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