affiliate_linkconnector_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 discloses that the tool returns Transaction records including derived ageDays, and indicates the filterable statuses. It does not mention pagination, date formats, or explicit read-only behavior, but as a list operation the core behavior is clear. The absence of side effects is implicit.

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 core action, followed by usage examples and a return-value/companion-tool note. Every sentence provides useful information without fluff.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, key filters, and the relationship to get_earnings_summary. It is missing pagination guidance and exact value formats (e.g., date format, allowed status strings), but given the low complexity of a list operation, it is reasonably complete.

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 key parameters: 'within a window' for from/to, 'specific programme' for programmeId, the statuses for status, and 'ageDays' for minAgeDays/maxAgeDays. However, it does not explain limit, cursor, or offset, which are pagination-related and remain ambiguous.

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') and clearly identifies the resource ('affiliate transactions'), the network ('LinkConnector'), and the scope ('within a window or for a specific programme'). It also lists the statuses (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid), which distinguishes it from sibling list_transactions tools for other networks.

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 usage examples are given: 'what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', or 'show me reversed sales'. It also instructs to pair with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, providing a clear alternative for a different use case. This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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