affiliate_offer18_list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns Transaction records including derived ageDays, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any default date ranges, pagination behavior, or permission requirements. The description adds some behavioral context but lacks comprehensive disclosure.

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 three sentences, front-loading the core action, then providing usage examples, and finally return details and pairing. Every sentence adds value without verbosity; the structure is logical and scannable for an agent.

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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview but omits key details like pagination, parameter formats, and edge cases. It explains the return type and use cases, but for a tool with this complexity, a complete description would need to cover more parameter behavior and response defaults.

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 implicitly covers 'from'/'to' via 'within a window', 'programmeId' via 'specific programme', and 'status' via the status list. However, it does not explain limit, cursor, offset, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays, leaving these opaque. The description adds meaning for some parameters but not all.

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's function: 'List affiliate transactions... on Offer18' with specific status categories (earned, pending, reversed, paid) and filtering by time window or programme. This distinguishes it from sibling list_transactions tools by naming Offer18 and enumerating exactly what transaction states are included, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance is given via example user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and a complementary tool is named ('pair with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for clicks), leaving a slight gap in exclusion guidance.

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