affiliate_partnero_list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by stating the return type (Transaction records) and the derived ageDays field. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (cursor/offset/limit) or any potential rate limits or authentication nuances, which are relevant for a list operation with 10 parameters.

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, each with a distinct purpose: definition, usage examples, and return/complement guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 having no output schema and 10 parameters, the description offers a solid overview of the tool's purpose, filtering options, and relationship to get_earnings_summary. It is missing explicit details on pagination and the complete set of filtering rules (e.g., default statuses, brand requirement), but it still provides enough context for common transaction-list use cases.

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 adds meaning to several key parameters: from/to (window), programmeId (specific programme), status (earned/pending/reversed/paid), and min/maxAgeDays (implied by derived ageDays). However, it does not explain pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) or the required brand parameter, leaving some schema fields semantically unaddressed.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('affiliate transactions on Partnero'), the statuses covered (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid), and filtering dimensions (window or programme). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_earnings_summary (aggregate totals) and list_clicks (click data).

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 gives explicit example user queries that should trigger this tool ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales'). It also names get_earnings_summary as a companion for aggregate totals, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus a related alternative.

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