affiliate_impact-advertiser_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds value by noting that returned records include a derived ageDays field and that the tool provides transactions rather than aggregate totals. However, it omits pagination behavior, default date-window handling, or any prerequisites (e.g., authentication/brand setup), which are relevant 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 focused sentences: core action, usage examples, and return behavior with a complementary-tool link. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information 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?

The tool has a large parameter surface (10 params), no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives purpose clarity but only partial parameter coverage and a minimal return description. An agent would likely struggle to invoke this correctly for edge cases like pagination, age filters, or cursor-based traversal without additional information.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the window (from/to), programme (programmeId), and status examples, but leaves brand, limit, cursor, offset, minAgeDays, and maxAgeDays semantically unexplained. The required 'brand' parameter is not described at all, creating a substantial gap for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List affiliate transactions') and scopes it to Impact advertiser, explicitly naming statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid). It also includes natural-language triggers ('what did I earn last month?') that distinguish this from sibling summary tools.

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 gives concrete when-to-use examples and names get_earnings_summary as a complementary tool for aggregate totals. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., for publisher-side transactions or when aggregates are required), so it falls short of the most explicit standard.

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