affiliate_flipkart_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that it returns Transaction records with a derived ageDays field, implying a read-only list operation. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens when no records match, which are important for a 9-parameter list tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, usage examples, and return details/pairing. There is no redundant fluff or repetition of schema/name.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, use cases, and return value (Transaction records with ageDays). It also suggests a complementary tool. However, it lacks details on pagination (cursor/limit), age-based filtering (maxAgeDays/minAgeDays), and how to handle large result sets, which are relevant for a list operation with no output schema or annotations.

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 hints at date range (window), programme filtering, and statuses (pending, reversed, paid), which map to some parameters like to/from, programmeId, and status. However, it does not explain limit, cursor, offset, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays, leaving the majority of parameters undocumented. This is a significant gap for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate transactions') on Flipkart Affiliate, and explicitly names the transaction statuses (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_clicks and get_earnings_summary by focusing on transaction records, and the tool name includes 'flipkart' to differentiate from other networks.

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 provides concrete user query examples ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and clearly indicates the tool's scope (within a window or for a specific programme). It also suggests pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., for clicks) or name alternative tools for similar purposes.

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