affiliate_travelpayouts_list_clicks

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns Click records and results are 'recent' and filterable, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default date ranges, authentication requirements, rate limits, or ordering. 'List' implies read-only, but this is not made explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and filters, then followed by a concrete use case and a sibling pairing. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a 6-parameter schema at 0% description coverage, the description must compensate heavily. It covers purpose and high-level output, but omits pagination, date formats, parameter specifics, and authentication needs, making it insufficient for fully confident 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% and none of the six parameters have descriptions. The description contributes the concepts of 'programme' and 'date' filters, which map to programmeId and from/to, but it leaves limit, cursor, and offset unexplained, and does not clarify formats or acceptable values.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'List recent affiliate clicks on Travelpayouts', and notes optional filters by programme and date. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions and 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?

It explicitly says to use this for 'traffic-side debugging' and gives concrete example questions ('are my links being clicked at all?', 'where is traffic going on Travelpayouts?'). It also recommends pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, which is clear guidance on alternatives and complementary usage.

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