affiliate_partnerize_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral detail. It reveals that records include derived ageDays and appear to be read-only (listing), but it doesn't mention pagination behavior, default date ranges, status value formats, or authentication requirements. Some value beyond schema, but not deep.

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 sentences: purpose, usage examples, and return/complement. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. 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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core semantics and return shape (Transaction records with ageDays), but it omits pagination, defaults, and detailed parameter syntax. It's useful but not fully complete for complex invocations.

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 does explain 'window' (from/to), 'programme' (programmeId), and statuses (pending/reversed/paid), and references ageDays. However, pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) and minAgeDays/maxAgeDays are not described, leaving several parameters ambiguous.

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?

Description clearly states 'List affiliate transactions... on Partnerize' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid) and scope (window or programme). This distinguishes it from the many sibling list_transactions tools for other networks.

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 use cases: 'what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', or 'show me reversed sales'. Also recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, offering complementary guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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