affiliate_2performant_get_earnings_summary

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. While it mentions the return type and a specific field (oldestUnpaidAgeDays), it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, how pagination works, or any side effects. The verb 'summarise' implies a read operation, but the description lacks explicit safety or behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and usage example. It avoids redundant explanations and includes a practical example and a pointer to a related tool, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 has 8 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to fully understand invocation. It lacks information about all parameters, pagination, date formats, authentication prerequisites, and the full contents of the EarningsSummary response. The description is a good start but leaves too many gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 compensate, but it only hints at parameters like date window (from/to), programme (programmeId), and status, omitting explainations for limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays. There is no detail on date formats, how status filtering works, or the meaning of the age-related parameters. The description provides minimal insight beyond what parameter names already imply.

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 it summarizes earnings on 2Performant over a date window with breakdowns by programme and transaction status. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transactions by positioning this as the summary-level tool and suggesting list_transactions for drilling into records. The verb 'summarise' and resource 'earnings' are specific and unambiguous.

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: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and gives an example query. It also names an alternative or complementary tool (list_transactions) for drilling into underlying records, effectively indicating when not to use this tool alone. This meets the 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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