affiliate_growsurf_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns Transaction records including derived ageDays and mentions statuses, which adds value. However, it doesn't mention pagination, side effects, or auth requirements, leaving gaps for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 purpose, and includes practical usage examples and a complementary tool reference. It is efficient without being terse, though slightly longer than necessary.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 10 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the core purpose and usage, but does not explain required brand, pagination, or the full range of filter options, making it insufficient for confident invocation without additional knowledge.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains from/to as 'window' and programmeId as 'specific programme', and status via the status list, but leaves brand, limit, cursor, offset, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays unexplained. The mention of ageDays is about output, not filtering, missing key filter semantics.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'affiliate transactions' on GrowSurf, with specific scope details (window or programme). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_earnings_summary and list_clicks by specifying transaction-level data including statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid).

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 explicit example queries ('what did I earn last month?') and suggests pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, which guides tool selection. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for click data), though the sibling names imply that distinction.

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