affiliate_afilio_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. It discloses that it returns Transaction records including derived ageDays, which is useful, but it does not describe pagination behavior, default limits, authentication requirements, or other side effects. It adds some behavioral context but lacks depth.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and includes use-case examples and return details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the primary user intent, specifies the return type (Transaction records with ageDays), and points to a complementary tool. It lacks exhaustive parameter explanations but is reasonably complete for a list operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to key parameters by mentioning 'within a window' (from/to), 'specific programme' (programmeId), and statuses (status). The mention of derived ageDays hints at minAgeDays/maxAgeDays. However, pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) are not explained, leaving several parameters underspecified.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'affiliate transactions on Afilio', with scope 'within a window or for a specific programme'. It also enumerates transaction statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid), which distinguishes it from related tools like list_clicks and 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 provides explicit example user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives like list_clicks.

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