affiliate_lomadee_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are Transaction records with a derived ageDays field, and implies filtering by date/programme/status. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements, but the provided behavioral context (derived field, record-level output) goes beyond minimal.

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?

Two sentences: first states the core action and scope, second gives usage examples, return field, and cross-reference to the summary tool. No filler, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, use cases, key filters, and a derived return field. Missing details like pagination defaults or exact status enum values are minor given the description's clarity, but the absence of output schema details prevents a perfect score.

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 adds meaning to from/to (window), programmeId (specific programme), status (earned, pending, reversed, paid), and min/maxAgeDays (via derived ageDays). It does not explain limit/cursor/offset pagination semantics, leaving a partial gap.

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 Lomadee, with specific scope (date window or specific programme) and status types (earned, pending, reversed, paid). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the platform and transaction type, and from get_earnings_summary by focusing on individual records.

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 when-to-use cues are given: "what did I earn last month?", "what's still pending?", "show me reversed sales". It also advises pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregates, providing an alternative/complementary tool. No misleading exclusions.

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