affiliate_adservice_list_transactions

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool returns Transaction records including a derived ageDays field, and that it does not provide aggregate totals (by redirecting to get_earnings_summary). However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default windows, or explicit read-only semantics, though 'list' implies a safe 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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage examples and a return-value note. There is no fluff or redundancy; 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives a solid overview and covers primary use cases, but omits pagination parameter semantics (limit, cursor, offset) and the minAgeDays/maxAgeDays age filters. It also only hints at the return shape via 'ageDays'. Given the complexity, more detail would be needed for full self-sufficiency.

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 9 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning to status (listed statuses), window (from/to), and programmeId ('within a window or for a specific programme'), but leaves limit, cursor, offset, minAgeDays, and maxAgeDays unexplained. It partially compensates for the schema gaps 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's verb and resource: 'List affiliate transactions (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid) on Adservice'. It highlights specific filters (window, programme) and distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the network and contrasting with 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 when-to-use guidance with example user queries: "what did I earn last month?", "what's still pending?", or "show me reversed sales". It also provides an alternative/complement: 'pair with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals', making the choice clear.

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