affiliate_travelpayouts_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 the return type ('array of Programme records') and the scope (joined vs. available to join), but does not mention pagination behavior, auth requirements, or how the optional filters affect results. For a simple list operation this is adequate but not rich.

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, leads with the core purpose, then usage triggers, then return format and companion tools. Every sentence adds value with no waste 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?

For a tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, user intent, return format, and related tools. However, it omits details about the Programme record structure and parameter semantics, which would improve completeness. Still, it provides enough for basic selection and 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 coverage is 0% and the description makes no mention of limit, cursor, offset, search, status, or categories. While parameter names are self-explanatory, the description does not add meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the lack of property descriptions.

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 ('List affiliate programmes') and clearly scopes it to Travelpayouts. It distinguishes from sibling list_programmes tools by network and includes example user queries that make the purpose 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 provides explicit trigger phrases ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Travelpayouts?') and suggests pairing with get_programme and list_transactions. It lacks explicit exclusions for when not to use it (e.g., other networks), but the context is strong.

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