affiliate_connexity_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 the tool returns Transaction records and includes a derived ageDays field, which is behavioral information not inferable from the schema. It also mentions status values and scoping, giving the agent a better sense of the output and query behavior. It does not cover pagination, rate limits, or ordering, but these are less critical for a read-only 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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, adds practical usage examples in the second, and finishes with return value and complementary tool information in the third. Every sentence earns its place.

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's moderate complexity (9 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and use it: it explains the domain, gives realistic user prompts, and clarifies the return type including the derived ageDays. The main gap is that several parameters remain undocumented, and no mention is made of pagination or default behavior, which an agent might need for full autonomous invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'from'/'to' via 'within a window', to 'programmeId' via 'for a specific programme', and to 'status' via the listed statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid). However, it does not explain limit, cursor, offset, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays, leaving several parameters undefined. This is a partial but not complete compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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'), the resource ('affiliate transactions'), and the platform ('Connexity'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying statuses ('commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid') and scoping options ('within a window or for a specific programme'). It also mentions how it complements get_earnings_summary, reinforcing differentiation.

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 example queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') that signal when to use this tool. It also tells the agent to pair it with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools like list_clicks or list_programmes, 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.