affiliate_tune_list_clicks

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 this is a listing (read) operation, mentions optional filters, and states the return type is Click records. It does not cover pagination behavior, default date ranges, or rate limits, but for a simple read-only list tool it adds useful context about the use case and output.

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, starts with the core purpose, and uses concrete examples. Every sentence adds value—purpose, use case, and output plus a comparison to a related tool. No fluff.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain both behavior and returns. It states that Click records are returned and provides a pair-with hint, but does not explain pagination behavior, date format requirements, or default limits. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 6 parameters have descriptions. The description mentions filtering by programme and date, which maps to programmeId and from/to, but leaves limit, cursor, and offset completely unexplained. This partial compensation is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 lists recent affiliate clicks on TUNE, with optional filtering by programme and date. It provides concrete example use cases ('are my links being clicked at all?') and distinguishes from the sibling tool list_transactions by suggesting pairing them. This is a specific verb+resource that differentiates it from other network-specific list_clicks tools.

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 explicitly says to use this for traffic-side debugging and gives diagnostic questions. It also instructs pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, which is a clear alternative/complement. This meets the 'explicit when/alternatives' standard.

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