affiliate_webgains-advertiser_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('array of Programme records') and the scope (joined or available), but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The phrase 'or which are available to join' is ambiguous about the exact filter behavior.

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, each with a distinct purpose: main action, user intent, and related tools. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail.

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 the 7-parameter schema and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: no parameter meanings, no pagination/filtering info, and ambiguity about the available-to-join scope. It is sufficient for basic selection but not for correct invocation with complex queries.

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 coverage is 0% for 7 parameters, and the description provides zero explanations for any of them. The required 'brand' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what to pass.

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') and resource ('affiliate programmes on Webgains (advertiser)'), and it provides example user queries that distinguish it from sibling tools for other networks. It clarifies both joined and available programmes, removing 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?

It explicitly states 'Use this when...' and lists concrete user intents, making selection easy. It also mentions pairing with get_programme and list_transactions, which provides complementary tool guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, though the Webgains-specific naming helps.

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