affiliate_awin_get_transactions_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it 'Returns matching transaction rows and can include basket products when Awin exposes them,' which discloses the return type and a conditional behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or explicitly confirm the read-only nature (though 'fetch' implies it).

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, with no redundant phrasing. Every sentence earns its place by covering what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and a high-level return description, but leaves gaps on timezone semantics, exact response structure, and edge cases. It is adequate for a known-transaction lookup but not fully comprehensive.

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 clarifies that IDs are 'numeric transaction IDs,' which adds context beyond the schema's string-or-number union, but it does not explain the 'timezone' parameter at all and only vaguely gestures at 'showBasketProducts' by mentioning basket products. Key parameters remain under-documented.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Fetch individual Awin transactions by numeric transaction IDs') that clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from broader list_transactions siblings. It also identifies the exact use case, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guides when to use the tool: 'when investigating a known transaction from a report, support ticket, or previous list_transactions result.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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