affiliate_travelpayouts_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 discloses that the tool returns Transaction records including derived ageDays, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination behavior, default date windows, or authentication requirements.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, and return/pairing info. No wordiness 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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main user intents, return shape, and pairing guidance well. It falls short only on pagination details (limit/cursor/offset) and explicit edge cases, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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. It gives semantic meaning to window (from/to or ageDays), programme (programmeId), and status (earned/pending/reversed/paid), but leaves limit, cursor, offset, and the exact format of min/maxAgeDays unexplained.

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 target resource (Travelpayouts), and the scope (statuses, window/programme). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the network and explicitly pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals.

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 concrete user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') to signal when the tool is appropriate. It also tells the agent to pair with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, implicitly drawing a boundary against the summary tool.

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