affiliate_everflow-advertiser_list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns Transaction records with derived ageDays and supports window/programme filtering, but it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or that it is a read-only operation (likely implied by 'list'). The description adds some context but lacks important behavioral details for a 10-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing usage examples and pairing advice. Every clause earns its place with no redundant filler or 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?

Given the complexity of 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides useful context (usage examples, return type, derived field) but remains incomplete. It fails to explain the required brand parameter, date format conventions, or pagination, which are essential for correct invocation. It is more complete than minimal descriptions but still leaves significant gaps for an agent to fill.

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 meaningfully explains the 'window' (from/to), 'specific programme' (programmeId), and statuses, but does not mention the required 'brand' parameter or the pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset). It also does not explain minAgeDays/maxAgeDays, though it references derived ageDays. Overall, it adds partial semantics but leaves many parameters underspecified.

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 Everflow (Advertiser) with specific statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid) and filtering by window or programme. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like affiliate_everflow_list_transactions by explicitly indicating the 'Advertiser' scope, and from get_earnings_summary by noting it returns Transaction records, not aggregates.

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 concrete example user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for other data types (e.g., list_clicks) or the non-advertiser variant, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between tools.

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