affiliate_cj-advertiser_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that results are Transaction records with derived ageDays and implies status and time-window filtering, adding some behavioral context. But it does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is strictly read-only, leaving significant unknowns for a list operation.

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 that convey the core action, usage triggers, and a complementary tool suggestion without redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and remains easily scannable.

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 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description leaves many gaps: it doesn't explain the required 'brand' parameter, date formatting, pagination fields, or how ageDays is calculated. The example phrases help with intent recognition but do not cover the full interface, so it is not complete enough for reliable invocation without further inference.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly references a few parameters: from/to as 'a window', status via 'pending/reversed/paid', and programmeId as 'specific programme'. It leaves brand, limit, cursor, offset, minAgeDays, and maxAgeDays entirely unexplained, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details despite having 10 parameters.

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 CJ Affiliate (advertiser), enumerating status categories (earned, pending, reversed, paid) and filtering by window or programme, which distinguishes it from publisher-side or other networks' transaction tools. The verb 'List' plus resource and scope makes it highly specific and 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?

It provides explicit user-intent examples ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and suggests pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, giving clear situational guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., publisher-side CJ transactions) or name alternative list_transactions tools for other sides.

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