affiliate_tradetracker_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'an array of Programme records' and includes both joined and available-to-join programmes, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, filtering semantics, authentication, or rate limits, leaving significant behavioral details undisclosed.

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 related-tool pairings. There is no fluff; every sentence adds value.

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 adequately covers the tool's high-level purpose and return type, and suggests related tools for drill-down. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks crucial invocation details such as parameter semantics, pagination, and filtering behavior, making it only partially complete for correct tool usage.

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?

The schema covers 0% of parameter descriptions, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). It provides only high-level context about the result set (joined/available programmes), not meaning for any specific parameter, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on TradeTracker (or which are available to join).' It names the network (TradeTracker), the resource (affiliate programmes), and distinguishes itself from sibling get_programme/list_transactions tools by describing the list scope and explicit user queries.

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 usage triggers, quoting user questions like 'which merchants am I working with?' and says to use it for a partner inventory. It also mentions complementary tools (get_programme for drill-down, list_transactions for activity), though it doesn't state explicit when-not conditions.

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