affiliate_mrge_list_transactions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns Transaction records including derived ageDays') and available status filters. However, it does not mention pagination, default time windows, or rate limits. For a read-only list operation, this is acceptable transparency, though not exhaustive.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second adds user examples, return info, and a pairing suggestion. No 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary use cases and return types, but omits details on pagination, date format, and comprehensive response fields. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent attempting to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description adds meaning to several parameters: from/to as a 'window', programmeId as a 'specific programme', status via the provided list, and ageDays implication via 'derived ageDays'. However, limit and cursor are left unexplained, and value formats or defaults are not given.

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 action: 'List affiliate transactions... on mrge within a window or for a specific programme.' It names the resource (transactions), the platform (mrge), and includes status categories (earned, pending, reversed, paid), distinguishing it from siblings like list_programmes and list_clicks.

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?

Provides explicit user query examples ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregates, giving clear when-to-use and when-to-pair guidance.

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