affiliate_ebay_list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include derived ageDays and that filtering is by window or programme, which adds behavioral context beyond a generic 'list'. However, it does not mention pagination or authentication requirements, preventing a 5.

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 concise sentences: purpose, usage triggers, and return info/pairing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core use cases but omits pagination behavior, default filtering when no parameters are supplied, and detailed parameter formats. These are clear gaps despite the overall good guidance.

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 input schema has 0% coverage, so the description compensates by mapping user intents to filters: 'window' implies from/to, 'specific programme' implies programmeId, and statuses map to status. It also hints at ageDays via the 'derived ageDays' mention. However, it does not explain pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) or that status can be an array.

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 'List affiliate transactions ... on eBay Partner Network' with a specific verb and resource, and covers the statuses (commissions earned, pending, reversed, paid). It distinguishes from sibling list_transactions tools by naming the network and specifying the scope (window or programme).

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 gives explicit example user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?') and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregates. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and references an alternative tool.

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