affiliate_adtraction_list_transactions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns Transaction records including a derived ageDays field, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (cursor/offset), any rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the tool, giving trigger examples, and noting return value and complementary tool. No filler or repetition; it is front-loaded with the core action and scope.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must supply substantial context. It covers the key usage scenarios, the return record type, and a companion tool, but it does not explain pagination, default date ranges, or how the 9 parameters work together. For a list operation with many unclear parameters, it is adequate but not 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?

The schema has zero description coverage across 9 parameters. The description partially compensates by implying from/to as a date window, programmeId as a specific programme filter, and the status parameter via the listed commission states. It also hints at minAgeDays/maxAgeDays through the derived ageDays field, but it leaves limit, cursor, and offset 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 clearly states the action ('List affiliate transactions'), the specific network ('on Adtraction'), and the scope ('within a window or for a specific programme'). It also enumerates the statuses covered (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 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?

Explicit use cases are provided ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales'), giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. It also recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, which names an alternative and helps the agent decide between tools, though it stops short of saying when not to use this one.

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