affiliate_adcell_list_transactions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context: returns Transaction records with derived ageDays and supports status filtering. However, it does not mention pagination, auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, all relevant: purpose, usage triggers, and return/pairing hints. It is concise with no fluff, though the second sentence is a bit dense with embedded quotes.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives a good high-level overview and common use cases, but it lacks details on pagination (cursor/offset/limit), age filters, and parameter syntax. It is adequate for basic queries but not fully complete for advanced usage.

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 explains from/to as a 'window', programmeId as a 'specific programme', and status via examples. But it omits limit, cursor, offset, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays, which are not self-explanatory.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists affiliate transactions on Adcell with statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid) and supports time-window or programme filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_earnings_summary by noting it returns individual records rather than aggregates.

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?

Explicitly gives example user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?') and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. This provides clear when-to-use context and names an alternative tool.

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