affiliate_value-commerce-advertiser_get_programme_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type (ProgrammePerformanceRow records) and scope, but does not explain pagination behavior (despite limit/cursor/offset parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or date range handling. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent invoking an 8-parameter tool.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence earns its place: the core action, the usage triggers, and the return type/complementary tools. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 examples, the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description omits pagination details, parameter semantics, and expected response structure, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only minimally maps parameters: 'by date' hints at from/to, 'per-publisher' hints at publisherId, and 'programme' hints at programmeId. It does not explain brand, limit, cursor, offset, or their formats, which is a major gap for an 8-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 fetches per-publisher performance for the brand's programme at ValueCommerce, listing specific metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission) and the 'by date' scope. It also differentiates from sibling tools like list_media_partners and list_transactions by explicitly noting usage for per-publisher rollups.

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 concrete use-case examples ('how is each publisher performing', 'top-earning partners last month') and names complementary tools (list_media_partners for publisher IDs, list_transactions for drill-down). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other performance tools like get_earnings_summary, so it's slightly less than exhaustive.

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