affiliate_eduzz_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 of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a bare 'list' by stating it returns Transaction records including a derived 'ageDays' field, and that it can filter by window or programme. It does not mention pagination, auth, or read-only status, but for a listing operation the description conveys the key behavior and return data.

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 core function, and uses concrete examples for usage. Every sentence provides value—function, use cases, return data, and cross-tool guidance—with no wasted words.

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 has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main use cases but leaves gaps: it does not explain default date ranges, pagination behavior, status value formats, or how parameters interact. The pairing with get_earnings_summary adds context, but the description is not fully complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 to several parameters: 'within a window' explains to/from, 'specific programme' explains programmeId, the status examples map to status, and 'derived ageDays' hints at minAgeDays/maxAgeDays. However, pagination params (limit, cursor, offset) are not explained, and the description does not clarify whether filters are optional or how they combine.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List affiliate transactions' on Eduzz, and enumerates the statuses covered (earned, pending, reversed, paid). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by network (Eduzz) and by operation (transactions vs clicks, programmes, earnings summary), and the example queries further reinforce its role.

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 states when to use the tool with concrete user phrasings: 'what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales'. It also directs pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, which helps the agent choose between this tool and the sibling summary tool.

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