affiliate_affise_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 for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'List' and describes the return type ('Transaction records including derived ageDays'). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The added detail about derived ageDays is useful but not comprehensive.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action and scope. Each sentence contributes value: the first defines what the tool does, and the second provides usage examples and a complementary tool. There is no redundant or filler content.

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's complexity (9 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It explains the return type at a high level ('Transaction records including derived ageDays') and mentions date/programme filtering, but it lacks information about pagination (limit/cursor/offset), date format expectations, or the full transaction record structure. It is adequate for basic use but leaves important gaps for an agent.

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 for parameter meaning. It provides some semantics: 'within a window' implies from/to, 'specific programme' maps to programmeId, and the status values (earned, pending, reversed, paid) correspond to the status parameter. However, it does not explain limit, cursor, offset, minAgeDays, or maxAgeDays, leaving significant gaps for a 9-parameter tool.

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 purpose: 'List affiliate transactions (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid) on Affise within a window or for a specific programme.' It identifies the specific resource (Affise transactions), the action (list), and the scope (date window or programme), distinguishing it from other network-specific list_transactions tools by naming 'Affise'.

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 provides explicit usage examples: 'Use this when the user asks "what did I earn last month?", "what's still pending?", or "show me reversed sales".' It also suggests pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, giving clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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