affiliate_affiliate-future_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 adds useful behavioral context by mentioning derived ageDays and the statuses it returns, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention pagination behavior, or disclose authentication requirements.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the tool's purpose, then provide usage examples, return details, and a pairing suggestion. There is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 description covers the core use cases well and even hints at return fields (derived ageDays). However, given the tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, it omits important operational details like pagination defaults, date handling, and explicit read-only confirmation.

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?

Since schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), the description compensates by explaining the meaning of 'window' (from/to), 'specific programme' (programmeId), and statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid). However, pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) are not described, and the date format for from/to is not specified.

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 Affiliate Future, including statuses like earned, pending, reversed, or paid. It also specifies the scoping options (window or specific programme), which distinguishes it from other network list_transactions 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 gives explicit when-to-use examples with natural language queries ('what did I earn last month?', etc.) and provides an alternative by suggesting pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. This helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool versus the summary tool.

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