affiliate_awin_list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the returned data (Transaction records with derived ageDays) and the filtering options (window, programme, status), but does not mention pagination behavior (cursor/offset), rate limits, or any side effects. 'List' implies read-only, but an explicit no-mutation statement is absent.

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 and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage triggers, then return details and a complementary tool. 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of pagination (cursor/offset), the meaning of age-based filters (minAgeDays/maxAgeDays), and the exact structure of Transaction records beyond ageDays. The pair-with note helps but does not fill these gaps.

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 adds interpretation for 'within a window' (from/to), 'specific programme' (programmeId), and statuses (status), but leaves limit, cursor, offset, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays unexplained. With 9 parameters, this is insufficient coverage.

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 Awin, explicitly naming the statuses (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid). It distinguishes itself from related tools like get_earnings_summary by noting it returns individual Transaction records rather than 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?

Usage is explicitly guided with example user queries: 'what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', or 'show me reversed sales'. It also recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, which provides an alternative/complement for a different use case.

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