affiliate_optimise-media_list_transactions

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool returns Transaction records including derived ageDays and lists supported statuses. However, it does not cover pagination behavior, date formats, or any side effects, though listing is inherently safe.

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 focused sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second adds example queries, return value, and pairing advice. No redundant or filler content.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid conceptual model: what it lists, statuses, example questions, and derived ageDays. It lacks explicit pagination and timezone details, but overall the core usage is well covered.

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 maps key parameter groups: 'window' to from/to, 'specific programme' to programmeId, statuses to the status parameter, and ageDays to minAgeDays/maxAgeDays. It omits limit, cursor, and offset, which are standard pagination parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate transactions on Optimise Media'), and scopes to statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid) within a window or for a programme. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the network and by mentioning get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals.

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 concrete example user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and indicates when this tool is appropriate. It also references pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, but does not explicitly say when not to use it.

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