affiliate_value-commerce_list_programmes

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 returning an array of Programme records but is ambiguous about whether it lists only joined programmes, only available ones, or both ('or which are available to join'). It does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or how the status parameter affects results.

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 compact at three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage examples. The return type is mentioned. However, the first sentence's ambiguity around 'or which are available to join' slightly detracts from clarity, so not a perfect score.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain parameter usage, expected filters, or pagination. It only states the broad purpose and return type, leaving the agent with little guidance for 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?

The schema has 6 parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories) with zero description coverage. The description does not mention any parameter, how to use them, or what values are expected. This is a significant gap for a tool with this many optional filters.

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 affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on ValueCommerce, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_programme and list_transactions by focusing on the programme list, and noting it returns Programme records.

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?

It provides concrete example user queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on ValueCommerce?') and mentions pairing naturally with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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