affiliate_addrevenue_list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns Transaction records including a derived ageDays field, and mentions the status categories it can filter on. This goes beyond the schema but does not cover pagination or auth expectations, which are less critical for a read-only list operation.

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 with no fluff. Each sentence adds value: function/scope, example use cases, and return/pairing information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains concise despite the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose, usage examples, return records, and derived ageDays, but omits pagination behavior and more detailed parameter interactions. For a complex list tool, this leaves the agent to infer some invocation details, making it adequate but not fully 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 coverage is 0% and there are 9 parameters. The description adds meaning to key params: 'within a window' (to/from), 'specific programme' (programmeId), statuses (status), and derived ageDays (minAgeDays/maxAgeDays). However, it does not explain pagination params (limit, cursor, offset), which are important for a list operation. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 Addrevenue, enumerates status types (earned, pending, reversed, paid), and specifies scope (within a window or for a specific programme). This distinguishes it from sibling list_transactions tools for other networks and from list_clicks or get_earnings_summary.

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 explicit example queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?') and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregates. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or name alternatives like list_clicks, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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