affiliate_partnerize-advertiser_list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns Transaction records including derived ageDays and lists statuses, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default date ranges, or read-only safety, so some transparency gaps remain.

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-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes example queries and a pairing suggestion. It is efficient but could be slightly tightened without losing helpful examples.

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 a 10-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a good high-level overview but lacks details on required parameters, date formats, and full return structure. It covers core use cases well but leaves gaps for an agent to correctly set all parameters or interpret complete output.

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% for 10 parameters, and the description compensates only partially. It mentions "within a window" (from/to), "specific programme" (programmeId), and statuses (earned/pending/reversed/paid) for the status field, but fails to explain the required brand parameter, limit/cursor/offset pagination, or minAgeDays/maxAgeDays semantics.

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 (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid) on Partnerize (Advertiser), specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the network and advertiser perspective, and from other list_* tools by focusing on transactions.

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?

The description explicitly provides when-to-use scenarios with example user queries like "what did I earn last month?" and mentions pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or alternative tools for other actions, but the guidance is clear and context-rich.

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