affiliate_post-affiliate-pro_list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns Transaction records including a derived ageDays field, which goes beyond a simple list. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps for a read-only tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and provides examples and return details without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is moderately helpful but leaves significant gaps: what 'brand' means, date formats, pagination behavior, and potential error conditions are unstated. It is not as complete as the high-calibration sample for a similarly complex tool, but it does cover core usage and a derived return field.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains some key parameters indirectly ('within a window' for from/to, 'specific programme' for programmeId, and the status names), but it does not explain the required 'brand' parameter, pagination controls (limit, cursor, offset), or the age-based filters (minAgeDays, maxAgeDays). The partial coverage warrants a mid-range score.

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 identifies the action ('List affiliate transactions'), the resource (Post Affiliate Pro), and the scope (within a window or for a specific programme). It also lists the transaction statuses (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid), which provides distinctiveness from 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?

The description gives explicit example user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context and examples are clear enough to guide selection among the many network-specific siblings.

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