affiliate_admitad-advertiser_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the return type 'EarningsSummary' and a specific field 'oldestUnpaidAgeDays', which is useful. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, whether the date window is inclusive, or any pagination/limitation behavior. It adds some value but does not fully carry the burden.

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-loaded with the core function, followed by usage guidance and return details. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition. It is concise yet informative.

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?

Despite having a clear purpose, the tool has 9 parameters, no param descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers only the high-level summary and one return field, leaving significant gaps about parameter meanings, pagination, and output structure. It is insufficient for safely invoking the tool correctly in many cases.

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 for the 9 parameters. It only vaguely references 'date window' (from/to), 'breakdowns by programme and by transaction status' (programmeId/status), and the example implies using status. It does not explain brand, limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, or programmeId semantics, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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 a specific verb ('Summarise earnings') and resource ('Admitad (advertiser)') with explicit scope ('across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status'). The example use case ('total earnings in Q1 with status split') further clarifies intent, making it distinct from sibling tools like list_transactions or list_clicks.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and provides a concrete example. It also recommends pairing with list_transactions for drilling into underlying records, giving a clear alternative. However, it does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., for raw transaction-level details), which would be stronger.

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