affiliate_profitshare_list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and adds useful context: it returns Transaction records with a derived ageDays field and supports window/programme filtering. Yet it omits operational details such as auth requirements, pagination defaults, ordering, or behavior when no parameters are supplied.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by concrete usage examples and a useful output hint. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's complexity (9 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is not complete enough. It doesn't define the Transaction record structure beyond ageDays, pagination behavior, date formats, or status value enumerations, leaving significant ambiguity for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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% across 9 parameters, and the description only hints at from/to ('within a window'), programmeId ('for a specific programme'), and status ('earned, pending, reversed, or paid'). Pagination parameters (limit/cursor/offset) and age-day filters (minAgeDays/maxAgeDays) are left unexplained, so the description doesn't sufficiently compensate for the sparse schema.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'List affiliate transactions... on Profitshare' and enumerates the status categories (earned, pending, reversed, paid). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_clicks or get_earnings_summary by focusing on transaction records and scoping filters (window/programme).

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?

Provides explicit user-intent triggers ('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 clicks or aggregate-only queries), so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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