affiliate_value-commerce-advertiser_list_programmes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type ('array of Programme records') and hints that the listing may include both joined and available programmes, but it does not clarify the joined/available scope, nor does it mention auth, pagination, or read-only nature. This is partial but not comprehensive transparency.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and all content is relevant. Example queries and pairing notes are useful, and there is no filler or repetition beyond the necessary '(advertiser)' qualifier.

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 having 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is brief and omits parameter semantics, pagination behavior, and filtering capabilities. It includes usage context and return type but is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke this tool with all parameters.

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 the description provides no semantic guidance for the 7 parameters. The required 'brand' parameter is never explained, and pagination/filter parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories) are ignored. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema 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 clearly states the action ('List affiliate programmes') on a specific resource (ValueCommerce advertiser) and includes example user queries. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming the platform and mentioning complementary tools (get_programme, list_transactions), though the 'joined vs available to join' phrasing introduces slight ambiguity.

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 ValueCommerce (advertiser)?') and indicates when to use the tool. It also names natural pairings with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity, which guides tool selection.

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