affiliate_coupang-partners_list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating that the tool 'Returns Transaction records including derived ageDays', which indicates an enriched return format. It also notes the scope of filtering ('within a window or for a specific programme'). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the read-only nature of the operation explicitly, which would be valuable given the absence of annotations.

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 action and resource. The first sentence defines the purpose and scope, the second provides usage examples and a pairing tip. No word is wasted, and each sentence contributes valuable information. The structure is highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides only partial completeness. It covers the main use cases, return type, and a derived field, but does not explain pagination, default behavior, or many parameter semantics. For a list tool with rich filtering options, this is sufficient for basic usage but not for advanced or edge-case queries.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It implicitly covers a few parameters: 'within a window' suggests from/to date ranges, 'for a specific programme' points to programmeId, and the statuses mentioned map to the status parameter. It also references derived ageDays, which relates somewhat to min/maxAgeDays. However, 9 parameters exist and most (limit, cursor, offset, minAgeDays, maxAgeDays) are not mentioned or explained, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate transactions on Coupang Partners'). It enumerates the transaction statuses handled (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid) and distinguishes its scope ('within a window or for a specific programme'). The examples of user questions make the purpose immediately understandable, and the note to pair with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals differentiates it from a closely related sibling tool.

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 'Use this when the user asks...' with three concrete example questions, providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It also mentions pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, which serves as a guideline for when to use a complementary tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like list_clicks, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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