affiliate_tolt_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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful return information (Transaction records including derived ageDays) and notes filtering options, but it does not mention pagination, default time window, sorting, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but leaves room for more 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 primary purpose, then usage triggers, then return details and a pairing suggestion. Every sentence provides distinct value and there is no filler 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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main use case and return shape but omits critical operational details like pagination behavior, parameter formats, required brand handling, and default window semantics. This is insufficient for reliable invocation without additional information.

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 for explaining all 10 parameters. It maps high-level concepts to some parameters: 'window' hints at from/to, 'specific programme' hints at programmeId, and status examples map to the status field. However, it does not explain required 'brand', pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset), or age-day filters (minAgeDays, maxAgeDays), leaving many parameters under-documented.

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 starts with 'List affiliate transactions' on Tolt, explicitly naming the resource (transactions) and platform (Tolt), and scopes it by window or programme. It also mentions specific statuses (commissions earned, pending, reversed, paid) and distinguishes itself from aggregate tools by recommending pairing with 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 gives concrete example user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') that signal when to use this tool. It also explicitly recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, effectively directing users away from using this tool for aggregated data.

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