affiliate_sovrn-commerce_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns Transaction records including derived ageDays and supports filtering by status and programme, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, side effects (likely none as it lists), or rate limits. This is adequate but lacks in-depth 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: the first sentence states purpose, the second gives concrete usage examples, and the third describes return type and a companion tool. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the primary use cases and return type but lacks critical details like date format, status allowed values, pagination behavior, and how ageDays filtering works. It is not fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly without further inference.

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 for parameter meanings. It hints at 'window' (from/to), 'specific programme' (programmeId), and status examples (status), but does not explain limit, cursor, offset, minAgeDays, or maxAgeDays. With 9 parameters, this is insufficient to guide correct invocation.

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 on Sovrn Commerce, with specific mention of statuses (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid) and filtering by time window or programme. This distinguishes it from sibling list_transactions tools for other networks by naming the specific network and scope.

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 the tool. It also guides pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, which serves as an alternative for a different need, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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