affiliate_ehub_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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output type ('Transaction records including derived ageDays') and return context, but does not mention pagination behavior (cursor/offset/limit), default date ranges, or any rate limits. This is partial transparency but not exhaustive.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the primary function and filters, the second provides usage examples and pairing advice. 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?

Given 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is relatively complete. It defines the core use cases, return type, and relationship to get_earnings_summary. Missing details include pagination mechanics and default behavior, but the essential context for selection and invocation is present.

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 semantically covers 'window' (from/to), 'specific programme' (programmeId), and statuses, and hints at ageDays (minAgeDays/maxAgeDays). However, it does not explain limit, cursor, offset, or the exact status values, leaving several parameters under-explained.

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 eHUB with statuses (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid) and supports filtering by date window or programme. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_clicks or get_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?

Explicitly provides example user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') that map to this tool, and advises pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, effectively guiding when to use this vs alternatives.

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