affiliate_value-commerce_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Returns Click records' and is used for debugging, giving some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on pagination (limit/cursor/offset behavior), the meaning of 'recent' (default time window), or any authentication/permission requirements. This is a small but meaningful gap.

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 exactly two sentences: the first is action-oriented and front-loaded with the main function; the second provides use-case context and a pointer to a related tool. There is no redundancy or filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a clear purpose, a practical use case, and the return type (Click records), but omits important details about pagination semantics and parameter-specific behavior. It is more complete than a bare one-liner but leaves clear gaps that could impact 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. It maps 'programme' and 'date' to the corresponding parameters (programmeId, from/to), which explains two of the six params. But it omits limit, cursor, and offset entirely, and gives no details on parameter formats or constraints. The compensation is partial and insufficient for a low-coverage schema.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('recent affiliate clicks on ValueCommerce'), and states the optional filtering dimensions (programme and date). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the network (ValueCommerce) and the record type (clicks), separating it from list_transactions and similar 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging — e.g. "are my links being clicked at all?" or "where is traffic going on ValueCommerce?".' It also recommends pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, which implies a comparison use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternative tools for other networks, so it misses the 'exclusion' part for a 5.

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