affiliate_belboon_list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the return type (Transaction records), the derived ageDays field, and the covered statuses, which is meaningful behavioral context. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' but does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits; however, those are partially inferred from schema fields (limit, cursor, offset).

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence earns its place: action, usage examples, and return/pairing details. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage examples, return type, and pairing with get_earnings_summary. However, it omits pagination behavior (cursor/limit/offset), exact status value formats, and precise window semantics, leaving gaps for an agent needing fully self-contained understanding.

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 explains the 'window' (from/to), 'programme' (programmeId), and status filter via examples, and the mention of derived ageDays aids understanding of minAgeDays/maxAgeDays. However, limit, cursor, and offset are not explained, leaving a significant portion of the 9 parameters undocumented.

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 it lists Belboon affiliate transactions with status categories (earned, pending, reversed, paid) and supports filtering by time window or programme. This distinguishes it from sibling list_transactions tools for other networks and from Belboon's own list_clicks or get_earnings_summary tools.

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?

It explicitly provides example user queries for when to use it ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, implicitly steering away from this tool for aggregated needs. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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