affiliate_amazon-creators_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains that the tool returns 'Transaction records including derived ageDays', giving return-value context. It also lists the statuses ('earned, pending, reversed, or paid') and mentions window/programme scoping. It does not disclose pagination or rate limits, but for a list operation the provided details are reasonably transparent.

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 main action. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the scope and statuses, the second provides usage examples and a cross-reference to the earnings summary. 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is not fully complete. It gives usage context and return info, but lacks detailed parameter semantics, pagination behavior, date format expectations, and any caution about auth or rate limits. It is adequate for common cases but leaves gaps for an agent needing exact invocation details.

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 does add meaning by referencing 'within a window' (from/to, minAgeDays/maxAgeDays), 'specific programme' (programmeId), and 'commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid' (status). However, parameters like limit, cursor, and offset are not mentioned, and date formats are unspecified. The partial coverage is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid) on Amazon Creators, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('transactions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the network (Amazon Creators) and by explicitly mentioning filtering by window or programme, and by cross-referencing get_earnings_summary for aggregates.

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 gives concrete example queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') that signal when this tool should be used. It also provides an explicit alternative: 'pair with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals' — telling the agent when to use a different tool. This is clear usage guidance.

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