affiliate_involve-asia_list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns Transaction records including derived ageDays and implies a read-only operation. However, it omits pagination behavior, default date ranges, and whether from/to are required, leaving some operational ambiguity.

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 the core purpose, and includes practical examples with minimal verbosity. Every sentence adds value, efficiently covering what the tool does, when to use it, and key return characteristics.

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 and no output schema, the description covers main use cases and return highlights but lacks full parameter details and output structure. It mentions Transaction records and ageDays but not fields, pagination, or constraints, making it incomplete for full invocation confidence.

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 schema has 9 parameters with zero descriptions. The description partially compensates by referencing 'window' for from/to, 'programme' for programmeId, and status values (pending, reversed). It does not explain pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) or minAgeDays/maxAgeDays explicitly, leaving gaps for several schema fields.

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 tool lists affiliate transactions on Involve Asia, specifying statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid) and scope (time window or specific programme). It distinguishes from sibling list_transactions tools by naming the platform and from get_earnings_summary by noting aggregation is handled separately.

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?

Explicit example user queries are given ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') that directly signal when to use this tool. It also recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, providing clear alternatives.

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