affiliate_admitad_get_earnings_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (EarningsSummary) and a specific field (oldestUnpaidAgeDays), and implies a read-only aggregation, but does not mention auth, pagination, rate limits, or how limit/cursor affect the summary.

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 focused sentences: purpose, usage scenario, and pairing advice. Each sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy.

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 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the full parameter set, the complete return shape beyond one field, or pagination semantics, leaving significant gaps for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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?

The schema has 8 parameters with 0% coverage, and the description adds meaning for the date window (from/to), status breakdown (status), and programme (programmeId). However, limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays remain unexplained, offering only partial compensation for the missing 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 clearly states the verb 'Summarise earnings' with the resource 'Admitad' and a date-window scope, plus breakdowns by programme and status. This distinguishes it from sibling list_transactions and other network summary tools.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and suggests pairing with list_transactions for deeper detail through 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records.'

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