Get Earnings Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does it well: it warns that totals are per-currency and never summed, exposes the lack of exchange rates, and explains that missing pre-publication reports are reported as not existing rather than zero. It does not describe return format, but an output schema exists.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: the core statement is first, followed by the currency pitfall and the freshness behavior. The example makes the summing danger concrete without being verbose.

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 two-parameter tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious behaviors an agent must know: no cross-currency summing, no exchange rates, and no fake zero reports before publication. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, and the description adds only the one-month scope as context. It does not add meaning for package_name beyond the schema, but with full schema coverage the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and its key dimensions: transaction-level earnings, one month, merchant currency. This clearly separates it from sibling report tools (installs, ratings, crashes) by naming the metric and granularity.

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 makes it obvious this is the earnings report, and the publication timing is useful operational context, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over a specific sibling or when not to use it. Usage 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.