affiliate_tradedoubler-advertiser_list_transactions

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

The description discloses return content ('Returns Transaction records including derived ageDays') and the ability to filter by time/programme. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits. Some behavioral context is given, but it is not comprehensive.

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?

Description is three sentences, about 70 words, with the main purpose first, followed by usage examples, then return info. Each sentence provides distinct value without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured for quick scanning.

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 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description lacks critical details such as required parameters, valid status values, pagination handling, and date format expectations. It provides a good high-level summary but is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 all 10 parameters. It only hints at time window and programme filtering, and indirectly references ageDays, but leaves required brand, status, limit, cursor, offset, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, and programmeId semantics unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with this many parameters.

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 statuses (commissions earned, pending, reversed, paid) on Tradedoubler (Advertiser). It specifies the scope (within a window or for a specific programme), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_earnings_summary (aggregates) and list_clicks (clicks). This is a specific verb+resource+scope combination.

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?

Provides explicit example queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') to guide when to use this tool. It mentions pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, offering complementary context, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other alternatives (e.g., list_clicks).

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