affiliate_admitad_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 derived ageDays' and scopes to a date window or programme, but does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or rate limits. The 'List' verb implies read-only, but this is not explicitly 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 with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action and object, then provides usage examples and pairing guidance in a compact structure.

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 has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main use case and examples but omits pagination semantics, date format requirements, and authentication prerequisites. It provides enough for straightforward queries but falls short of full completeness for the parameter-heavy schema.

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% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It maps 'within a window' to from/to, 'for a specific programme' to programmeId, and 'commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid' to status, plus 'ageDays' to min/maxAgeDays. However, it leaves limit, cursor, offset, and exact status enum values unexplained.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'affiliate transactions' and scopes it to 'on Admitad within a window or for a specific programme.' It also enumerates transaction types (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list_clicks/list_programmes tools.

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 explicitly states 'Use this when the user asks...' and gives three concrete example queries. It also suggests pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, providing complementary context. However, it does not explicitly exclude other alternatives like list_clicks for non-transaction data.

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