affiliate_adservice_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 disclosure burden. It reveals that the return includes an EarningsSummary with oldestUnpaidAgeDays, and 'summarise'/'get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify data freshness, defaults, or whether the date window is inclusive. It adds some behavioral context but leaves many assumptions implicit.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, a usage tip, and a pairing suggestion. Every sentence contributes without filler, redundancy, or repetition of the schema fields.

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 a tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a usage scenario but omits critical invocation details such as pagination (cursor/limit), age filters, and response behavior beyond a single field. An agent would likely struggle with complex or non-default queries.

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 zero descriptions, and the description only loosely references a 'date window' (presumably from/to), 'programme' (programmeId), and 'status' (status). It does not explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, value formats, or optionality, forcing the agent to guess how to construct a valid request.

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 opens with 'Summarise earnings on Adservice across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status', which clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools for other networks and from the adservice list_transactions tool that it explicitly recommends for drilling into details.

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 gives a concrete example ('total earnings in Q1 with status split'). It also recommends pairing with list_transactions to drill into underlying records, providing clear when-to-use and when-to-use-alternative guidance.

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