affiliate_adrecord_get_earnings_summary

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return field oldestUnpaidAgeDays and mentions breakdown dimensions, but it does not address read-only safety, rate limits, pagination, or how date filters interact with age filters. It is not misleading, but it is only partially transparent.

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 with no fluff: it states what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema parameter descriptions, the description provides a clear overview and return type but leaves several parameters (age filters, pagination) and behavioral specifics (date format, status values) unexplained. It is adequate for initial selection but not fully complete for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the date window (from/to), programme breakdown (programmeId), and status breakdown (status), but leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays unexplained. The description partially compensates for the schema's silence.

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's function: summarise earnings on Adrecord over a date window, with breakdowns by programme and transaction status. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_transactions by positioning itself as a summary rather than a detailed record listing.

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 to use it when a 'single-figure answer plus context' is needed, and mentions pairing with list_transactions to drill into underlying records, which defines the appropriate use context and an alternative/complementary tool.

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