affiliate_2performant_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context (returns Transaction records including derived ageDays, filters by window or programme), but does not disclose auth requirements, pagination behavior, rate limits, or explicit read-only status. The 'List' verb implies read-only, but it is not stated.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main function, then usage guidance, then return-info and complement. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 is adequate for a basic list operation: it covers purpose, basic filters, return type, and a complementary tool. However, with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, it leaves gaps around pagination, exact parameter formats, and any network-specific quirks. It is not incomplete enough to be unusable, but it could be more thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It hints at mapping for from/to ('within a window'), programmeId ('specific programme'), and status (earned, pending, reversed, paid). However, it does not explain cursor, offset, limit, minAgeDays, maxAgeDays, or that status can be an array, leaving most of the 9 parameters undocumented.

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 affiliate transactions on 2Performant, specifies the kinds of transactions (commissions earned, pending, reversed, paid), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_programmes, list_clicks, and get_earnings_summary. The verb 'List' plus resource 'affiliate transactions' is specific.

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 examples ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and instructs pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, effectively differentiating when to use this tool versus alternatives. This is clear guidance.

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