affiliate_adtraction-advertiser_get_earnings_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns an EarningsSummary and highlights a specific field (oldestUnpaidAgeDays), and implies a read-only summarization operation. However, it does not state authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or side effects (though likely none). It adds some value but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose, usage guidance, and return value. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds information.

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 the complexity of 9 params and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, usage scenario, and return type. Yet it omits parameter formats, allowed status values, and pagination details, making it only partially complete for an agent to invoke correctly without further inference.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the meaning of key parameters: date window (from/to), programme breakdown (programmeId), and status breakdown (status). However, it does not explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, or the required brand parameter, leaving several 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 uses a specific verb 'Summarise earnings' and identifies the platform (Adtraction advertiser), the scope (date window), and the breakdown dimensions (programme, transaction status). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_transactions tool by noting it returns a single-figure answer. This clearly differentiates it from other earnings_summary tools across networks.

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 states when to use it: when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context, with a concrete example. It also recommends pairing with list_transactions for drilling into records, which provides guidance on alternatives/complements. This is explicit usage direction.

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