affiliate_accesstrade_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about the return shape ('EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays') and clarifies it produces an aggregate rather than raw transactions. However, it omits behavioral details like pagination (despite cursor/limit params), date-window semantics, or any auth/rate-limit info, leaving moderate gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance. Every clause adds value: the example clarifies use cases, and the 'pair with list_transactions' is actionable. No fluff or repetition.

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 8 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to cover much more. It only hints at parameter semantics and gives one return field (oldestUnpaidAgeDays) without explaining the full EarningsSummary structure or how pagination/limits behave. This leaves agents without enough context to confidently invoke or interpret results.

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%, and the description only implicitly references a few parameters ('date window' suggests from/to, 'by programme' → programmeId, 'by transaction status' → status). It does not explicitly describe any parameter, their formats, defaults, or relationships, and ignores limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays entirely, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarise') with a clear resource ('earnings on AccessTrade') and scope ('across a date window', 'breakdowns by programme and by transaction status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_transactions by explicitly stating this is for a 'single-figure answer plus context' and even names the return type (EarningsSummary).

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?

It provides an explicit usage trigger: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context', with a concrete example. It also directs to an alternative/pairing: 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records', clearly indicating when not to use this tool alone.

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