affiliate_accesstrade_list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds useful behavioral details: returns Transaction records, includes derived ageDays, and covers four statuses. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (limit/cursor), default sort order, error handling, or whether all statuses are returned by default. It gives some transparency but not comprehensive.

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, each with a clear purpose: definition, usage triggers, and return/complement info. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no filler. 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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It provides a high-level purpose and one return detail (ageDays), but omits essential contextual information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: date format, pagination mechanics, status enum values, default behavior, and output structure. The agent would need significant additional inference to use all parameters properly.

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 9 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only vaguely hints at parameters: 'within a window' implies from/to, 'specific programme' implies programmeId, and the status list implies the status parameter. It does not explain limit, cursor, offset, minAgeDays, maxAgeDays, or the format expected for date strings. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List affiliate transactions (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid) on AccessTrade'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing transaction statuses and by explicitly recommending get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, making it clear this tool is for itemized transaction records.

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 provides explicit usage triggers with concrete example queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and names get_earnings_summary as a complementary tool for aggregate totals, effectively guiding the agent on when to use this versus alternatives.

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