affiliate_tapfiliate_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It conveys read-only behavior via 'List', mentions derived ageDays in returns, and describes status filtering. However, it omits pagination behavior, but the schema provides cursor/offset/limit.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance and return info. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

For a complex 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It ignores the required brand parameter, does not explain date window format, or pagination mechanics, and offers minimal return shape beyond 'Transaction records including derived ageDays'.

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?

With 10 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It explains 'window' (from/to), 'programme' (programmeId), and statuses, but leaves required brand, pagination (limit, offset, cursor), minAgeDays/maxAgeDays unexplained, and does not map status values to the status field explicitly.

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's action: 'List affiliate transactions... on Tapfiliate', with specific filters (window, programme, statuses). It distinguishes itself from sibling list_transactions tools by naming Tapfiliate and citing concrete use cases.

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 lists when to use the tool ('Use this when the user asks...') and suggests pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, providing clear context and an alternative/complement.

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