affiliate_levanta_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds value by disclosing the returned record type (Transaction), the derived ageDays field, and the status categories. However, it omits pagination behavior, default date-window handling, auth prerequisites, and date format details, which are relevant for a list operation with cursor/limit/offset params.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core behavior first, then adds usage cues and output hints. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy 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?

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to be more exhaustive. It covers purpose, usage, and a key derived field, but it omits pagination, default window behavior, auth expectations, and a fuller sense of the returned records. It is useful but not fully complete for this complexity level.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the window (from/to), specific programme (programmeId), and status values (earned/pending/reversed/paid). However, it does not explain pagination params (limit/cursor/offset) or the semantics of minAgeDays/maxAgeDays beyond the implied ageDays mention, leaving major gaps.

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 affiliate transactions') with a clear resource ('on Levanta'), and further scopes by status, time window, or programme. It distinguishes from siblings like get_earnings_summary and list_clicks by focusing on transaction records and mentioning pair usage.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when' with concrete user queries, and suggests pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with list_clicks, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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