affiliate_scaleo_list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns Transaction records including derived ageDays, and lists the statuses handled (earned, pending, reversed, paid). While it doesn't mention pagination or authentication, the verb 'List' and 'Returns' convey a read-only operation, and the return detail is useful behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core action and scope, the second gives concrete use cases, and the third notes return content and a companion tool. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is front-loaded.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not fully complete operationally. It covers the main use cases and return shape, but omits pagination behavior and details about the ageDays filters. It is adequate for tool selection but leaves gaps for full 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 coverage is 0% and there are 9 parameters. The description effectively clarifies several of them through natural language: 'window' maps to from/to, 'specific programme' maps to programmeId, and the status examples map to status. However, it does not explain limit, cursor, offset, minAgeDays, or maxAgeDays, leaving part of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List affiliate transactions ... on Scaleo', and further scopes by status, date window, and programme. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_clicks and get_earnings_summary.

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 concrete user queries that should trigger this tool ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and explicitly advises pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the complementary alternative.

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