affiliate_tune_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return type ('array of Programme records') and scope (joined or available), but omits details about pagination, filtering behavior, authentication requirements, or potential edge cases, which are relevant given the multiple parameters.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences covering purpose, usage examples, and return type/related tools. Every sentence provides value, with the core purpose front-loaded.

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?

Despite clear purpose and usage, the tool has six undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not convey parameter semantics or behavioral details like pagination and filtering, making it insufficient for fully correct 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%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories) or how they map to the two modes (joined vs. available). The mention of 'joined' and 'available' is an implicit hint but not explicitly tied to a parameter.

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 affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on TUNE (or which are available to join).' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate programmes') with an explicit platform (TUNE) and scope, which distinguishes it from sibling list_programmes tools for other networks.

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 when-to-use guidance with example user queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on TUNE?') and mentions complementary tools (get_programme for drill-down, list_transactions for activity), effectively signaling when alternatives should be used.

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