Get ClickBank analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It usefully adds that summarize=true changes the call to a totals/summary endpoint, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, date-range defaults, or what the response shape looks like. This is adequate but not rich beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is stated clearly and the most important switch ('summarize=true') is called out as an imperative. Every word 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?

This is a 14-parameter tool with no output schema, yet the description does not mention date-range inputs, pagination, result shape, or relevant sibling tools. An agent could select the wrong analytics tool or make incorrect assumptions about scope and return format.

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 only 43%, so the description carries some burden for parameter clarity. It adds meaning to role (vendor vs affiliate) and dimension (with examples like product and country), and clarifies summarize as the totals switch. However, many parameters (select, orderBy, dimensionFilter, page, maxPages, dates) remain unexplained beyond enum names or schema descriptions.

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 ('Fetch') and names the resource ('vendor or affiliate analytics') with the key grouping concept ('by dimension'). It gives concrete examples ('product, country, tracking id') that clarify what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling analytics tools like get_subscription_analytics.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_subscription_analytics, list_quickstats, or summarize_quickstats. It implies usage through the role/dimension parameters but provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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