affiliate_webgains-advertiser_list_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return includes Transaction records with derived ageDays and scoping by date/programme. However, it omits pagination/limit/offset behavior, authentication needs, and read-only status. The added context is useful but partial.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage triggers and return info. It is efficient and avoids fluff, though it could be organized with structured param hints.

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 10-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers common use cases and mentions derived ageDays. But it fails to explain pagination, all parameter semantics, or output structure details, leaving gaps for complex queries.

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 explain the 10 parameters. It covers status types and window/programme concepts, but leaves from/to formats, limit/cursor/offset, maxAgeDays/minAgeDays, brand, and pagination semantics unexplained. Compensation is insufficient for the number of parameters.

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 'List affiliate transactions... on Webgains (advertiser)' with statuses (earned, pending, reversed, paid) and scope (window or programme). This verb+resource+scope is highly specific and distinguishes it from publisher tools and other network transaction 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?

It provides explicit use-case triggers ('what did I earn last month?', 'what's still pending?', 'show me reversed sales') and suggests pairing with get_earnings_summary for aggregates. It does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., for publisher data), but the examples and advertiser naming make selection clear.

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