affiliate_impact_list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that results are Transaction records with a derived ageDays field and that filtering is by window or programme. It does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any error handling, which would improve transparency for a 9-parameter 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by concrete use cases and a pointer to the summary tool. No redundant information or filler.

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 one-network list tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough purpose and usage context to select the tool, and it names the output type. But it omits pagination details (cursor/offset/limit), parameter semantics for the age filters, and any response structure, so agents may mis-specify filters.

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% parameter description coverage. The description helps with some parameters: 'within a window' implies the to/from pair, 'specific programme' implies programmeId, and the listed statuses (pending, reversed, paid) map to status. However limit, cursor, offset, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays are left unexplained, and the derived ageDays hint doesn't clarify the min/max age 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 opens with 'List affiliate transactions (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid) on Impact within a window or for a specific programme.' This provides a specific verb, resource, and scope, and names the network. It also distinguishes from related listing tools by focusing on transactions and referencing get_earnings_summary for aggregates.

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?

It provides explicit natural-language triggers: 'Use this when the user asks "what did I earn last month?", "what's still pending?", or "show me reversed sales".' It also points to get_earnings_summary as a companion for aggregate totals, giving an alternative. However it doesn't explicitly state when to use the alternative instead of this tool.

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