affiliate_daisycon_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 states the return type ('Returns Transaction records including derived ageDays'), which adds behavioral context beyond simply 'list'. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default date ranges, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 operation and scoping, followed by usage examples and return info. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview but lacks details on pagination, default behavior, and the full transaction record structure. The mention of derived ageDays helps, but it's not enough to be fully complete for a complex tool.

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 adds meaning by explaining the window (from/to), programme (programmeId), and status values (earned, pending, reversed, paid), plus the derived ageDays. But it leaves pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) and age filter parameters (minAgeDays, maxAgeDays) completely unexplained.

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 lists affiliate transactions on Daisycon, scoped by time window or specific programme, and names the transaction statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid). It uses a specific verb+resource+scope and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_clicks and get_earnings_summary by focusing on transactions.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales'), and even recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, covering both usage and alternatives.

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