affiliate_tradetracker_list_transactions

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns Transaction records with a derived ageDays field, implying read-only behavior. But it does not mention pagination, rate limits, auth requirements, or any side effects. There are clear gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 the core action, then examples and a pairing note. No fluff; each sentence adds value.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain parameter semantics and return structure. It gives only the high-level purpose and an ageDays hint, leaving agents to guess about pagination, status values, and defaults. This is incomplete for safe autonomous invocation.

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?

Coverage is 0% and the description only hints at 'within a window' (from/to) and 'specific programme' (programmeId). It fails to explain status, limit, cursor, offset, minAgeDays, maxAgeDays, or their interactions. For a 9-parameter tool, this is insufficient.

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 action ('List affiliate transactions'), the network ('TradeTracker'), and the scope ('within a window or for a specific programme'). It also enumerates transaction statuses and provides example user queries, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_clicks and 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 explicit triggers: 'Use this when the user asks...' with concrete examples. It also suggests pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, implying a distinction between detailed transactions and summaries. However, it does not explicitly exclude other alternatives like list_clicks, so it falls short of a full when-not.

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