affiliate_shopmy_list_transactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return content (Transaction records with derived ageDays) and filter capabilities (window, programme, status). While it doesn't explicitly state auth requirements or confirm no side effects, the verb 'List' implies a non-mutating read operation, and the added detail about ageDays provides useful behavioral context beyond a simple listing.

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 with the action and key scope front-loaded. Every sentence contributes: what it lists, when to use it, and what it returns alongside a complementary tool. 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers main intent, statuses, and return type but omits details on pagination, date formats, and the full structure of Transaction records. It's adequate for basic use but incomplete for complex queries involving cursor, offset, or age-based filtering.

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. It mentions window (from/to), programme (programmeId), and statuses, but ignores pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) and maxAgeDays/minAgeDays. With 9 parameters, only about half are semantically described, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer correct usage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate transactions on ShopMy'), and specifies the scope (time window or specific programme) and statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_earnings_summary and network-specific list_transactions tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool with example user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?') and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. This provides clear usage context and an alternative, fully meeting the 'when to use vs alternatives' requirement.

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