affiliate_value-commerce-advertiser_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the return type (Transaction records) and a derived field (ageDays), which adds value, but it does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether it is strictly read-only (though inferable from 'list'). This is adequate but not rich.

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 with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by concrete example questions and a pairing suggestion. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description provides a good overview but leaves gaps around default window behavior, pagination, and parameter interactions. It mentions the return type and derived field, which helps, but a fully complete description would cover more edge cases.

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. It explains the meaning of window filtering (from/to), programmeId, and status values, but does not clarify limit, cursor, offset, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, or brand beyond their inherent names. Some compensation is provided, but it's partial for a 10-parameter tool.

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 specific statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid) on ValueCommerce (advertiser), and distinguishes itself from the publisher-side sibling by explicitly naming 'advertiser'. It also mentions the ability to filter by time window or programme, making the scope precise.

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 explicit example queries ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') that signal when to use this tool. It also recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals, giving clear usage context and an alternative.

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