affiliate_indoleads_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds some behavioral context by stating the return type ('Transaction records including derived ageDays') and the types of statuses included. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default date ranges, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are provided—significant gaps for a listing 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, each with clear value: the first defines the action and scope, the second provides concrete use cases, and the third specifies the return type and suggests a complementary tool. No wasted words, well-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 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to cover a lot. It addresses the core purpose, usage examples, and return type, but leaves out critical operational details like pagination, default behavior when no params are given, and date format expectations. It is adequate for a simple list scenario but has clear gaps for a parameter-rich 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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning of key parameters indirectly: 'within a window' maps to from/to, 'specific programme' to programmeId, and the list of statuses to the status parameter. The mention of 'derived ageDays' hints at minAgeDays/maxAgeDays. However, limit, cursor, and exact date formats are left unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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 Indoleads, with explicit filtering options (time window, specific programme). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_clicks and get_earnings_summary by naming the exact resource and providing example user queries that map to this tool.

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 ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?') and explicitly recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, which names an alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for clicks), but the examples and context make the intended usage clear.

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