affiliate_webgains_list_clicks

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation ('List...') and states the return type ('Returns Click records'). However, it does not disclose details like default date ranges, pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This leaves some behavioral traits undocumented, but the core read-only nature is clear.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function, the second gives usage context and a related tool. Every clause adds value, with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters but no output schema or annotations, and the description omits pagination details and date format semantics. It does cover the purpose, filters, return type, and usage context, but the lack of parameter-level explanation and return structure leaves gaps. Given the complexity of the parameters, a more detailed description is needed for full completeness.

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 input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'optionally filtered by programme and date', which maps to programmeId and from/to, but it does not explain limit, cursor, offset, or the exact format for dates. This partial coverage does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions for all parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List recent affiliate clicks on Webgains'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_transactions by focusing on clicks and specifying the network (Webgains). The optional filters (programme and date) further clarify scope.

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 tells when to use this tool: for traffic-side debugging, with concrete examples ('are my links being clicked at all?', 'where is traffic going on Webgains?'). It also names a complementary tool, list_transactions, for comparing clicks vs conversions, providing clear context on when this tool is relevant and how it fits with alternatives.

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