affiliate_flexoffers_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 states that the tool returns Transaction records including derived ageDays, which gives some transparency about the return format. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, or whether the operation is strictly read-only beyond the verb 'List'.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose, the second gives usage examples and return details. Every clause earns its place, and the key verb 'List' is front-loaded.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid starting point but has gaps. It covers purpose, example usage, and return type, but does not explain pagination mechanics or all filtering options. The cross-reference to get_earnings_summary is helpful, but the description is not fully complete for an agent to invoke it correctly in all scenarios.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, forcing the description to explain parameter meaning. It explains the core dimensions: 'within a window' maps to from/to, 'for a specific programme' maps to programmeId, and the status list maps to the status parameter. However, pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) and age filters (minAgeDays, maxAgeDays) are not described, leaving several parameters ambiguous.

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 affiliate transactions'), specifies the resource ('on FlexOffers'), and enumerates the transaction statuses (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid). It differentiates from sibling tools by naming the network and describing its scope (window or specific 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 should trigger this tool. It also directs the agent to pair with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, offering clear guidance on when to use this tool versus adjacent tools.

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