affiliate_cake_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 returns Transaction records, includes a derived ageDays field, and supports filtering by window or programme. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation the provided context is substantive and helps set expectations for the return payload.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each clause adds value (statuses, filtering, user intents, return type, companion tool). No redundancy or filler exists; it is an ideal length for conveying essential information.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, key filtering dimensions, return content, and relationship to a sibling aggregate tool. It omits pagination mechanics (cursor/offset/limit) and default behavior, which are relevant for a list endpoint, but overall it's sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining the window (from/to), programmeId, status categories, and the derived ageDays field which relates to min/maxAgeDays. It does not explain cursor/limit/offset, but these names are relatively self-explanatory and the main functional parameters are semantically covered.

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 affiliate transactions on CAKE, enumerates status types (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid), and mentions filtering by time window or programme. It uses concrete user queries and distinguishes itself from get_earnings_summary, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 when-to-use examples ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?') and directs to get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, implying this tool is for transaction-level details. This is strong usage guidance that helps an agent choose between transaction listing and summary tools.

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