affiliate_cj_list_transactions

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 does reveal that the tool returns Transaction records with a derived ageDays field and supports filtering by status and programme, which adds useful context. However, it omits details about pagination behavior, default date windows, or any potential side effects (though listing is inherently read-only), leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 main purpose, and includes practical usage examples and return-value information. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a commendable job covering the primary use cases and key filtering dimensions (window, programme, status). It also hints at derived data (ageDays) and points to a complementary tool for aggregates. However, it leaves out details like pagination mechanics and default behavior when no filters are applied, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 does explain the meaning of several key parameters: 'within a window' maps to from/to, 'specific programme' maps to programmeId, and the status examples (earned, pending, reversed, paid) map to the status parameter. The mention of derived ageDays also hints at minAgeDays/maxAgeDays. However, it does not clarify date formats, exact status string values, or pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset), so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 CJ Affiliate transactions with specific statuses (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid) and a scoping window or programme filter. The verb 'List' and resource 'affiliate transactions' are precise, and the mention of 'CJ Affiliate' distinguishes it from sibling list_transactions tools for other networks.

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 provides explicit when-to-use 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. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for different types of queries (e.g., clicks), so it falls short of a 5.

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