affiliate_netrefer_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and partially fulfills it by disclosing that it returns Transaction records including a derived ageDays field. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, authentication requirements, or that this is a read-only operation, which are relevant for a list tool.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core action and scope, the second gives concrete usage triggers, and the third mentions return content and complementary tool. No filler or repetition; 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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and basic return format. It is incomplete for a 9-parameter tool because it omits pagination parameter semantics and does not disclose default behaviors. The cross-reference to get_earnings_summary adds valuable integrative context, but gaps remain.

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 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the filter dimensions of 'within a window or for a specific programme' and status categories, which maps to from/to, programmeId, and status. However, it does not explain cursor, limit, offset, minAgeDays, or maxAgeDays, leaving significant 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') and resource ('affiliate transactions on NetRefer'), and enumerates the status types (earned, pending, reversed, or paid). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_earnings_summary by noting it returns Transaction records rather than aggregates.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when the user asks...' with concrete example queries. It also provides guidance on the alternative: 'pair with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals,' effectively saying when not to use this tool alone.

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