affiliate_rewardful_list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns Transaction records including derived ageDays and supports filtering by window/programme, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some ambiguity.

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 purpose and scope, followed by usage examples and return-value details. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain all parameters, pagination, or error/edge cases. It also lacks details about the return format beyond a brief mention of Transaction records and ageDays, making it insufficient for fully informed invocation.

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 the undocumented parameters. It implicitly covers from/to via 'within a window', programmeId via 'specific programme', status via the status list, and minAgeDays/maxAgeDays via 'derived ageDays'. But it does not explain limit, cursor, offset, or provide formats or allowed values for parameters, leaving many gaps.

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 Rewardful, with specific statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid) and supports filtering by date window or programme. It distinctly names the resource as 'affiliate transactions' and the platform as 'Rewardful', making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools for other networks or different resource types.

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 example user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?') that map directly to when this tool should be used. It also mentions pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, indicating a complementary relationship. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_clicks, though the examples make the intended use clear.

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