affiliate_howl_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 return includes Transaction records with a derived ageDays field, and implies status filtering. However, it does not mention pagination, default window behavior, authentication requirements, or ordering, leaving significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 tight sentences: purpose, usage examples, and return/pairing note. No repetition of schema details or filler language. Front-loaded with the action verb.

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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in all cases. It lacks parameter formats, defaults, pagination handling, and output structure details beyond 'Transaction records including derived ageDays'. The guidance is useful for basic queries but incomplete for a complex tool.

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%, and the description only indirectly references 'window' (likely from/to), 'specific programme' (programmeId), and statuses. It does not explain the purpose of limit, cursor, offset, minAgeDays, or maxAgeDays, leaving a large portion of the 9-parameter schema 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('affiliate transactions') and scope ('on Howl'), and enumerates statuses (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid) and filter dimensions (window, specific programme). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly naming the Howl network and providing usage examples.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and directs pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, effectively indicating when this tool is not sufficient on its own.

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