affiliate_shareasale_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: it returns Transaction records including derived ageDays. It implies read-only operation via 'List' and describes scope (window/programme/status), but omits pagination, auth needs, and side-effect details.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose and scope; the second gives usage triggers and a return detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides core purpose and usage but leaves gaps: no pagination behavior, no exact parameter format, no auth or rate-limit context. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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. It hints at 'within a window' (from/to), 'specific programme' (programmeId), and status terms, but does not explicitly map these to parameters. Pagination params (limit, cursor, offset) and min/maxAgeDays are left to inference.

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 (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid) on ShareASale within a window or for a specific programme.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like list_clicks or get_earnings_summary by specifying ShareASale and transaction statuses.

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 provides explicit usage examples: 'Use this when the user asks "what did I earn last month?", "what's still pending?", or "show me reversed sales".' It also mentions pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, so no exclusion is given.

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