affiliate_value-commerce_list_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that it returns Transaction records including derived ageDays and supports status filtering, but does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, 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, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, includes relevant examples, and ends with a useful pairing suggestion. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of purpose, usage, and return type. It could be more complete by explaining pagination or parameter relationships, but the core context is well covered.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It hints at the 'window' (from/to or min/max age days) and 'programme' (programmeId) and statuses, but does not clarify the difference between from/to and min/maxAgeDays, or the roles of cursor, offset, and limit.

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 on ValueCommerce, with specific statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid), and scoping by date window or programme. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the network and the exact resource type, and provides concrete example queries.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given with example user queries, and it recommends pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregate totals. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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