affiliate_awin-advertiser_list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns Transaction records including derived ageDays and enumerates statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid), which adds behavioral context. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, date window semantics, or any side effects/auth requirements, though as a list operation the safety profile is relatively clear.

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, each earning its place: purpose, usage triggers, and return/complementary tool. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, includes concrete examples, and has no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides the core purpose and return type, but it fails to document most parameters, pagination, or input formats. An agent would likely struggle to correctly construct calls beyond the basic examples, so the description is incomplete for its complexity.

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 implicitly covers a few parameters ('window' for from/to, 'specific programme' for programmeId, and the status categories), but it does not explain the required brand parameter, nor limit, cursor, offset, minAgeDays, maxAgeDays, or date formats. With 10 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 verb 'List' plus the resource 'affiliate transactions' on Awin (advertiser), and defines the scope as 'within a window or for a specific programme.' It distinguishes itself from sibling list_transactions tools by specifying the Awin advertiser platform and from get_earnings_summary by noting the complementary relationship.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance with concrete user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and suggests pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or directly name alternative tools, so it falls slightly short of full exclusion guidance.

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