affiliate_commission-factory_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the return includes Transaction records with a derived ageDays field, which is valuable. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default date handling, or authentication requirements, leaving notable gaps.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence gives action and scope, the second provides usage triggers, and the third describes return shape and a companion tool. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema details.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must be comprehensive. It covers core purpose, main filters, and output type, but omits pagination semantics, default date ranges, and parameter formats, leaving an agent partially unguided.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to from/to via 'within a window', programmeId via 'specific programme', status via the listed statuses, and minAgeDays/maxAgeDays via 'derived ageDays'. But it does not explain limit, cursor, or offset, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 Commission Factory, enumerates the statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid), and notes filtering by window or programme. This directly distinguishes it from siblings like list_programmes, list_clicks, and get_earnings_summary.

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 gives explicit example user queries that should trigger this tool, such as 'what did I earn last month?' and 'what's still pending?', and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, so it misses a full 5.

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