affiliate_refersion_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 discloses that it returns Transaction records including derived ageDays, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, pagination, or rate limits. The listing nature implies safety but lacks explicit detail.

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 primary action, and each sentence adds value: action/scope, usage examples, and return/pairing info. Slightly detailed but not excessive.

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 (10 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description should explain more. It covers usage and return but lacks parameter meanings, pagination details, required field clarification, and response structure beyond 'Transaction records including ageDays'.

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 for 10 parameters. It mentions window (from/to), specific programme (programmeId), and statuses (status), but omits the required 'brand' parameter entirely and doesn't cover pagination (limit, cursor, offset) or age filters (minAgeDays/maxAgeDays).

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 it lists affiliate transactions on Refersion, specifies statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid), and scopes to a time window or specific programme. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming Refersion and pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregates.

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?

Explicit usage examples are provided ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and the description guides toward get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, setting clear boundaries vs alternatives.

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