affiliate_adtraction-advertiser_list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (Transaction records), includes derived ageDays, and covers status filtering. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default date ranges, or ordering, which are relevant for a list operation. Still, it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the name.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose sentence, usage examples, and return/companion guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description partially covers what an agent needs. It explains scope, statuses, return type, and derived ageDays, but omits pagination details, output field specifics, and behavior when no filters are provided. Enough for basic use but not fully complete for a 10-parameter tool with rich transaction data.

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 adds meaning for from/to (window), programmeId (specific programme), status (statuses listed), and hints at ageDays via the derived field. However, it does not explain brand, limit, cursor, or offset, leaving several of the 10 parameters without semantic guidance.

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 Adtraction (advertiser) with specific statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid) and supports time windows or programme filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like affiliate_adtraction_list_transactions by explicitly specifying '(advertiser)'.

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 provides when-to-use guidance with concrete user intents ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales'). Also advises pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, guiding when not to use this tool alone for summaries.

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