affiliate_daisycon-advertiser_list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results include derived ageDays, filters by status/window/programme, and implies a read-only list operation. This adds useful behavioral context, though it stops short of mentioning pagination or auth.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the following sentences provide useful usage examples and a pointer to a sibling tool, making every sentence valuable.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a strong high-level overview and operational context for common queries. However, it omits important invocation details like required brand, date format, and pagination behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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%, and the description partially compensates by referencing a date window (from/to), programme (programmeId), and statuses (status). However, it does not explain the required brand parameter, pagination (cursor/limit/offset), or minAgeDays/maxAgeDays, leaving several parameters under-described.

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?

Clearly states 'List affiliate transactions' on 'Daisycon (advertiser)' with statuses and filtering scope, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling list_transactions tools for other networks and from the non-advertiser Daisycon variant.

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?

Explicitly gives 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 aggregates. This provides clear when-to-use and complementary-tool guidance.

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