affiliate_webgains_list_transactions

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

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses the return type ('Returns Transaction records including derived ageDays') and indicates that results can be filtered by window, programme, and status. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not cover operational details like pagination or authentication. Since this is a read-only listing operation, the provided transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 primary verb and resource, followed by usage examples and return details. Every sentence contributes distinct value, with no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview but lacks details on pagination, parameter semantics for cursor/offset/limit, and a complete list of return fields. The mention of 'Transaction records including derived ageDays' is a start, but it does not fully describe the response structure or 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to at least four parameters: 'within a window' (from/to), 'specific programme' (programmeId), statuses (status), and derived ageDays (minAgeDays/maxAgeDays). However, it does not explain limit, cursor, or offset, leaving several parameters ambiguous for the agent.

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 (commissions earned, pending, reversed, or paid) on Webgains within a window or for a specific programme.' It identifies the specific resource (affiliate transactions on Webgains) and explicitly mentions statuses and filter scopes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_clicks or get_earnings_summary.

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 usage guidance with example queries: 'Use this when the user asks "what did I earn last month?", "what's still pending?", or "show me reversed sales".' It also names an alternative tool for aggregate totals ('pair with get_earnings_summary'), clarifying when not to use this tool.

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