affiliate_firstpromoter_list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It adds useful context: returns Transaction records including derived ageDays, and mentions the companion tool for aggregates. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or pagination, but 'list' strongly implies non-destructive 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource. Each sentence earns its place: definition, usage examples, and return/complementary tool info. No fluff.

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?

Captures the core use case well, but with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain pagination, the required brand parameter, and the meaning of ageDays filters. The lack of schema parameter descriptions amplifies this gap.

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 has zero descriptions for 10 parameters. The description only hints at window (from/to), programme (programmeId), and status categories, but omits required brand, pagination parameters (limit, offset, cursor), and ageDays filters. This leaves many parameters poorly understood.

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 action (List), the resource (affiliate transactions on FirstPromoter), and the filtering scope (window or specific programme). It also distinguishes from the sibling get_earnings_summary by noting it returns individual transactions rather than aggregate totals.

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?

Provides concrete example user questions ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and explicitly recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool vs. the alternative.

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