affiliate_addrevenue_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. It discloses the return type (EarningsSummary) and a notable field (oldestUnpaidAgeDays), but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention pagination behavior, or note any authentication requirements. The 'Summarise' verb implies non-mutating, but this is not made explicit.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose, then usage guidance, then output/pairing. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (8 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the main use case and one output field, but does not explain pagination, age filtering, default behavior when no parameters are passed, or the full response structure. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

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?

With 8 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It maps 'date window' to to/from, 'programme' to programmeId, and 'status' to status, covering the core concepts. However, it does not explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays, leaving a significant portion of the parameters undocumented.

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 summarises earnings on Addrevenue across a date window with breakdowns by programme and transaction status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_transactions and list_clicks by explicitly focusing on aggregate summary rather than individual records.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and gives a concrete example. It also mentions pairing with list_transactions to drill into underlying records, which provides an alternative when more detail is needed.

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