affiliate_pepperjam_list_transactions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the tool returns Transaction records including a derived ageDays field, which is useful. However, it omits any discussion of pagination, rate limits, authentication expectations, or how multiple filters interact (e.g., whether status accepts an array of values). For a read-only list tool, the disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose, the second provides actionable usage examples, and the third mentions key return information and a useful sibling. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives a solid high-level overview but lacks detailed parameter guidance, filtering combinations (e.g., status as array), pagination behavior, and any caveats about data retention or default time windows. It is sufficient for a simple use case but incomplete for complex or nuanced requests.

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 for all 9 parameters. It only vaguely references 'window' and 'programme' and lists status values without mapping them to the actual from/to/status/programmeId parameters. It does not explain limit, cursor, offset, or min/maxAgeDays semantics. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent trying to construct valid arguments.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists affiliate transactions on Pepperjam with status categories (earned, pending, reversed, or paid) and supports filtering by time window or programme. The mention of pairing with get_earnings_summary distinguishes it from a sibling tool, and the name itself disambiguates from 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?

Explicitly gives example user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?') and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for click data) or contrast with other transaction-list tools beyond the summary, so it falls just short of full 5.

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