affiliate_tune_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns Transaction records including derived ageDays, and implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, authentication needs, or any edge cases like empty results.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences that efficiently deliver purpose, examples, and a companion tool reference. No wasted words.

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 list tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core purpose, usage signals, and return type, but lacks details on pagination, date formats, and parameter behavior. It is adequate for a simple list use case but not 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 hints at from/to and programmeId via 'within a window or for a specific programme' and status via the listed statuses, but leaves limit, cursor, offset, minAgeDays, maxAgeDays unexplained. The meaning of derived ageDays is partially covered.

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 verb 'List' with the resource 'affiliate transactions' on TUNE, and specifies the scope (window or specific programme) and statuses covered (earned, pending, reversed, paid). This distinguishes it from sibling network-specific list_transactions tools.

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 user queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?') and recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for clicks) or name alternatives beyond the companion summary tool.

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