affiliate_yieldkit_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 read-only nature implicitly through 'List', states the return type as 'an array of Programme records', and clarifies the dual scope of joined/available programmes. It does not mention pagination, authentication, or rate limits, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable partial disclosure.

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 earning its place: first states the action, second gives usage triggers, third describes the return and related tools. No fluff.

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 description gives the essential behavior and return type, which is useful given no output schema. However, with 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, it omits guidance on how to use pagination/filtering and how to interpret 'available to join' results. This is adequate but not complete.

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%, and the tool description does not discuss any of the 6 parameters. The parameter names (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories) are only nominally descriptive, leaving ambiguity about expected values and their interaction (e.g., allowed status values, whether categories combine). The description should have compensated, but it does not.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Yieldkit (or which are available to join)', clearly distinguishing this from sibling network-specific list_programmes tools. The inclusion of example user queries ('which merchants am I working with?') further grounds the purpose.

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 the user asks...' and provides three concrete phrasings, giving clear when-to-use conditions. The mention of 'pairs naturally with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity' points to alternative tools for complementary tasks. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other networks' list_programmes tools, so a small gap remains.

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