affiliate_tradetracker_list_clicks

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns 'Click records' and is for read-side traffic debugging, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination behavior, default date range, or authentication requirements. Some behavioral context is added, but significant gaps remain.

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 guidance and a complementary tool reference. Every sentence adds 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?

The description explains the purpose, usage, and return type, making it adequate for a basic list tool. However, given the 6-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, it omits important context such as pagination syntax, default date ranges, and parameter formats, leaving the description only partially complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that results can be 'optionally filtered by programme and date,' covering programmeId and from/to, but does not explain limit, cursor, or offset (pagination parameters). This partial compensation justifies a mid-range score.

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's function: 'List recent affiliate clicks on TradeTracker, optionally filtered by programme and date.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (clicks), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on traffic-side debugging and mentioning pairing with list_transactions.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use scenarios: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging — e.g. "are my links being clicked at all?" or "where is traffic going on TradeTracker?".' It also references an alternative/complementary tool (list_transactions) for comparing clicks vs conversions, which guides tool selection.

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