affiliate_everflow_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 the tool returns Transaction records including derived ageDays, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or default date-range handling, leaving some transparency gaps for a list operation.

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 action, and every sentence adds value: the first defines scope, the second gives usage examples and a pairing recommendation. There is zero redundancy or filler.

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 annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers key aspects (purpose, statuses, date window, return records) but omits pagination behavior, default window semantics, and parameter-specific format details. It is adequate for a basic list tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 implicitly covers 'from', 'to', 'programmeId', and 'status' via phrases like 'within a window', 'specific programme', and listing statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid). However, it provides no guidance for limit, cursor, offset, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays, leaving over half the parameters unexplained.

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's function: 'List affiliate transactions (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid) on Everflow within a window or for a specific programme.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate transactions'), scopes it to Everflow, and includes example user queries that ground the purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_clicks or 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks...' and provides concrete examples ('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, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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