affiliate_clickbank_list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns Transaction records including a derived ageDays field and supports filtering by status and programme/window. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, default limits, or any side effects, which would be helpful for a tool with no other metadata.

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 long, each earning its place: purpose, usage examples, and return value plus pairing recommendation. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and there is no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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 needs to be thorough. It covers the core purpose, usage scenarios, return type, and some param semantics, which is good. But it omits details on pagination (limit/cursor/offset), date format expectations, and the full structure of Transaction records, leaving the agent to guess about important operational aspects.

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 adds meaning to several parameters: 'within a window' clarifies the from/to date range, 'for a specific programme' explains programmeId, and statuses are enumerated. It also hints at age-based filtering through the mention of ageDays. However, the pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) are left completely unexplained, and no information is given about date formats or allowed status values.

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 states a specific action ('List affiliate transactions') with a clear resource ('on ClickBank') and scope ('within a window or for a specific programme'). It lists the transaction statuses covered (earned, pending, reversed, paid) and includes example user queries, making it unmistakable. It also differentiates this tool from the sibling get_earnings_summary by noting it returns Transaction records rather than aggregates.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when the user asks things like 'what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', or 'show me reversed sales'. It also provides an alternative by instructing to pair with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, implying use that tool when aggregates are needed. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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