get_earnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves historical data ('earnings history'), implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety (e.g., no mutations). It lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination (beyond the schema's page_size), or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key data fields. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from data details.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving historical data with one optional parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what data is returned but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, rate limits) and doesn't explain the return format. For a tool with no structured output, more detail on the response structure would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'page_size' fully documented in the schema (type, range, default). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as how pagination interacts with the earnings data. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 retrieves bounty earnings history with specific details (amounts, currency, dates, programs). It uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'bounty earnings history' and lists the data fields returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_report_activities' or 'search_reports' which might also involve earnings-related data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools that might overlap with earnings data. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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