affiliate_admitad-advertiser_list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return type ('Transaction records including derived ageDays'), which is meaningful beyond the schema. It implies read-only behavior through 'List', though it does not explicitly state auth requirements or pagination behavior.

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 core purpose, and every clause earns its place. It packs statuses, filtering options, example queries, return value hints, and a pairing suggestion without unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool's complexity—10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema—the description is strong on usage intent and return type but leaves gaps. It omits the required 'brand' parameter, pagination mechanics, and exact status value constraints, which an agent needs for correct invocation beyond tool selection.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for window (from/to), programme (programmeId), status, and age-related fields via 'derived ageDays'. However, the required 'brand' parameter is not mentioned, and limit/cursor/offset pagination semantics are left entirely to the schema, which has no 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 clearly states the tool lists affiliate transactions with a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('transactions on Admitad (advertiser)'), and scope ('within a window or for a specific programme'). It also enumerates relevant statuses (pending, reversed, paid), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_clicks and 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?

It provides explicit user-intent examples ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. This clearly tells an agent when to select this tool and how it fits with related tools.

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