affiliate_webgains-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. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds context about the return type (ProgrammePerformanceRow records) and how it pairs with other tools. However, it does not explicitly state whether authorization is required or mention any potential side effects, though for a read operation this is less critical.

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: first sentence states the core function, second sentence provides use-case examples, and third sentence explains complementary tools and return type. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description should be more exhaustive. It does state the return type and use cases, which is helpful, but the lack of parameter semantics and the absence of any details about pagination, filters, or date ranges make it only partially complete for the agent to invoke correctly in all scenarios.

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, but it only mentions 'by date' and does not explain the roles of specific parameters like publisherId, programmeId, limit, cursor, or offset. The description gives no guidance on how to format dates or which parameters are needed for common use cases, leaving the agent to infer param meanings from names alone.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the specific resource: per-publisher performance for the brand's programme at Webgains (advertiser), including the exact metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_media_partners and list_transactions, which have different scopes (discovering publisher IDs and transaction-level drill-down).

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 says 'Use this when' and gives concrete example user queries ('how is each publisher performing on Webgains (advertiser)?', 'show me the top-earning partners last month'). It also names complementary tools (list_media_partners, list_transactions) and explains how they relate, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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