Payouts summary report (CSV)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the output can be large and the date range should be kept to a month or less, which warns the agent about payload size. It stops short of stating whether results are truncated or what the CSV contains.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the operational caveat follows immediately; every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly names the return format (CSV) and warns about size, covering the essentials for a two-parameter report tool. It omits how the CSV is delivered (inline text, URL, or file reference), which is a minor gap for a download-style tool.

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 100%: both start_date and end_date document ISO 8601 format, examples, and bare-date semantics. The description only restates that there are two dates and adds no format or boundary detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (download) and resource (CSV report of payouts and their transactions) with the scope bounded by two dates. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling get_payout_report_csv (nor from get_payout_summary), so an agent cannot tell which report tool to pick without further inspection.

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 date-range framing implies usage context, and the size caveat hints at when this is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative named for cases where a JSON, paginated listing (e.g. list_payouts) would be preferable. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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