affiliate_effiliation_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists transactions, returns Transaction records with derived ageDays, and supports status/window/programme filtering. It could mention pagination behavior, but the read-only nature and return characteristics are reasonably 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then concrete use cases, then return/companion info. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or tautology.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main filtering dimensions (status, date window, programme) and return expectations (Transaction records, ageDays). It lacks pagination semantics and default behavior, but overall provides enough context for an agent to use it effectively.

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 semantic meaning for from/to ('window'), programmeId ('specific programme'), status ('commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid'), and implies min/maxAgeDays via 'derived ageDays'. However, it does not explain cursor, limit, offset, or date formatting, leaving several parameters under-specified.

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 'List affiliate transactions' and clearly identifies the resource (transactions on Effiliation), scope (within a window or for a specific programme), and statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_clicks and get_earnings_summary.

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 examples ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and directs pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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