affiliate_skimlinks_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 disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns Transaction records with a derived ageDays field and supports filtering by date/programme/status. However, it does not explicitly state whether authentication is required, pagination behavior, or any side effects, leaving some gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 core purpose, then usage triggers, and finally output details and a pairing suggestion. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 (9 params, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too high-level. It provides a good overview and examples but does not cover parameter usage details, pagination, error conditions, or the full return structure, making it insufficient for reliable invocation in edge cases.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage with 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It indirectly references 'window' (from/to), 'specific programme' (programmeId), and statuses (status), and mentions ageDays (minAgeDays/maxAgeDays). However, it ignores limit, cursor, offset, and does not explain parameter formats or default behavior, leaving most parameters 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 clearly states the tool lists affiliate transactions with specific statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid) on Skimlinks, and can filter by date window or programme. This verb+resource+scope is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_clicks or 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?

The description provides explicit example user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') that indicate when to use this tool. It also suggests pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, offering a complementary alternative, though it does not explicitly state when to use other list tools like list_clicks.

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