affiliate_avantlink_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description adds useful behavioral details: it mentions supported statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid), the returned object type (Transaction records), and a derived field (ageDays). It does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or default date ranges, but covers core output characteristics.

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 with no filler. The first sentence defines the action and scope, the second gives practical usage triggers, and the third explains return content and cross-references to the summary tool. Every sentence adds value and the structure is front-loaded.

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 has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat under-specified. It covers key user intents and return type, but leaves gaps around parameter defaults, pagination, and allowed status values. It is minimally viable but not thorough.

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 effectively maps 'window' to date-range parameters and 'programme' to programmeId, and lists status values. However, it does not explain pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset), age range parameters (minAgeDays, maxAgeDays), or clarify the expected format for dates or status values.

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 AvantLink, specifying the scope ('within a window or for a specific programme') and the resource type. It distinguishes from sibling list_transactions tools by naming the network and further differentiates from get_earnings_summary by recommending pairing for aggregate totals.

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 usage guidance is provided with concrete example user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales'). It also names the complementary alternative (get_earnings_summary) for aggregate totals, clarifying when not to use this tool alone.

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