affiliate_digistore24_list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that return records include derived ageDays and clarifies the scope parameters, but it does not mention pagination behavior, default date range handling, or authentication requirements. For a read-only listing tool this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by use-case examples and a pairing suggestion. No filler or redundant repetition of schema information.

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?

The core purpose and common use cases are covered, but with 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description omits pagination details, date formats, and age filter semantics. It is adequate for typical intent but not fully complete for an agent needing to invoke all parameters correctly.

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 9 parameters. It interprets 'window' (from/to), 'specific programme' (programmeId), and status categories, but leaves limit, cursor, offset, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays unexplained. Partial compensation for the schema gap.

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 Digistore24, enumerating status types (earned, pending, reversed, paid) and scope (window, programme). This verb+resource+platform combination distinguishes it from many sibling list_transactions tools for other networks.

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 user query examples ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, giving clear situational guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative network-specific transaction listers.

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