affiliate_partnerstack-advertiser_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions derived ageDays and filter scopes (window/programme), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose pagination behavior or potential error conditions. Some useful context is added, but key safety and operational traits are omitted.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It adds value with status examples, derived fields, and pairing guidance without wasted words.

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?

The description gives a clear purpose, usage examples, and return field hints, but with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, it leaves significant gaps in parameter details and operational behavior. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully self-sufficient.

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 explain the parameters. It only partially covers status, from/to, programmeId, and age-related filters; the required 'brand' parameter and limit/cursor/offset are not explained. With 10 parameters, this is insufficient for correct invocation without external knowledge.

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 with status types (earned, pending, reversed, paid) on PartnerStack (advertiser). It specifies the resource, action, and scope (window or specific programme), and the mention of 'advertiser' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like affiliate_partnerstack_list_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?

Explicitly provides trigger examples ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?') and pairs with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, which disambiguates from related tools. This gives clear when-to-use context and points to the complementary alternative.

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