affiliate_commission-factory-advertiser_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns Transaction records including derived ageDays and implies read-only via 'List', but does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds example queries and return details, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides useful purpose, use cases, and return type, but it omits pagination semantics, the meaning/format of the required brand parameter, and details on how age filters interact with ageDays. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete for complex invocations.

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 conceptually covers window (from/to), specific programme (programmeId), and status values, but the required brand parameter is not explained, and limit/cursor/offset/minAgeDays/maxAgeDays are left entirely to the schema, which has no descriptions. This leaves many parameters under-specified.

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 action ('List affiliate transactions'), the resource ('Commission Factory (advertiser)'), and the scope (statuses, window, specific programme). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the advertiser variant and listing concrete transaction states, making the purpose 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?

The description gives explicit example user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. It provides clear when-to-use guidance but does not explicitly contrast with the non-advertiser variant or other network tools.

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