affiliate_yieldkit_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns Click records and supports filtering by programme/date, but omits details on pagination behavior (cursor/offset), default date ranges, or authentication requirements. It correctly implies a read-only listing operation, but more behavioral context would improve transparency.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and filters, and the second provides use-case context and a sibling relationship. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, use cases, return type, and relationship to list_transactions. However, it omits pagination mechanics and exact parameter formats, which are important for a listing tool with cursor/offset. It is fairly complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the 6 undocumented parameters. It clarifies that 'from'/'to' are date filters and 'programmeId' filters by programme, but it does not explain 'limit', 'cursor', or 'offset' (likely pagination controls). This is partial compensation — helpful for the main filters but incomplete for the remaining 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 the tool lists recent affiliate clicks on Yieldkit, optionally filtered by programme and date. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_transactions by framing it for traffic-side debugging, which separates it from the sibling transaction tool.

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 explicit usage guidance with concrete example questions ('are my links being clicked at all?' and 'where is traffic going on Yieldkit?') and recommends pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the examples and pairing instruction give strong contextual guidance.

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