affiliate_partnerstack_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only list operation and mentions the derived ageDays field in return records. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens with large result sets, which are relevant for a list operation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and every clause adds meaningful context (statuses, filters, usage examples, pairing). No 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?

Despite having no output schema and nine parameters, the description offers a reasonable overview but lacks details on return fields (only mentions ageDays), pagination, and parameter semantics for pagination/age filters. It is adequate for basic use but incomplete for complex queries.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'window' (implying from/to), 'specific programme' (programmeId), and statuses that map to the status parameter. But it does not explain limit, cursor, offset, minAgeDays, or maxAgeDays, leaving many parameters underspecified.

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 on PartnerStack, with specific statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid) and filtering by window or programme. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_earnings_summary and list_clicks.

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?

It provides explicit example user queries ('what did I earn last month?') and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregates, which gives clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools like list_clicks, though the examples imply the appropriate scope.

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