affiliate_affiliate-future_get_earnings_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the return type (EarningsSummary with oldestUnpaidAgeDays) but does not disclose auth requirements, default behavior when date range is omitted, pagination semantics, or side effects. For a read tool with no annotation support, this is insufficient.

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, each earning its place: the first states the function, the second gives usage guidance with an example, and the third describes the return value and a pairing with list_transactions. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

With 8 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It only hints at the return structure (one field) and does not cover date formats, status values, or pagination. The overall context is insufficient for reliable tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'date window' to from/to, 'breakdowns by programme' to programmeId, and 'transaction status' to status, but leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays completely unexplained. The description adds some meaning but is incomplete for 8 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 summarizes earnings on Affiliate Future across a date window with breakdowns by programme and transaction status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_transactions by explicitly framing this as a summary and suggesting list_transactions for drilling down.

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: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' with a concrete example. Also points to list_transactions as the alternative for underlying records, giving clear guidance on tool selection.

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