affiliate_adtraction_get_earnings_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays, which is useful, and implies a read-only summarize operation. However, it doesn't mention pagination (despite limit/cursor in schema), date-window boundaries, or any other behavioral characteristics that would help the agent understand the tool's side effects or constraints.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a helpful usage example and a related-tool tip. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides only high-level context and a single return field. It lacks parameter semantics, pagination behavior, auth requirements, and a clear explanation of the returned structure. The example and pairing hint help, but the description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explicitly map parameters to their meanings. It alludes to 'date window' (from/to), 'by programme' (programmeId), and 'by transaction status' (status), but gives no details for limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, or the exact expected format. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to adequately compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 'summarise[s] earnings on Adtraction across a date window' with breakdowns by programme and transaction status. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling earnings summary tools for other networks, and it also mentions the return type (EarningsSummary) and a key field.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context') and provides a concrete example. It also recommends pairing with list_transactions for deeper drill-down, which names a complementary alternative tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough.

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