affiliate_affise_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 burden. It discloses that the tool returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays, which gives some ontext. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or how it behaves when optional parameters are omitted. For a query tool this is a moderate gap.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and an example in the same sentence. The second sentence adds a return detail and a pairing suggestion without going overboard. It is slightly dense but still concise and well-structured.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not address pagination, default behavior, or the full return shape beyond one field. The pairing suggestion helps but cannot compensate for missing parameter semantics and behavioral details.

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 for parameter meaning. It only loosely references a 'date window' (from/to), 'breakdowns by programme' (programmeId), and 'by transaction status' (status). Parameters like maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, cursor, and limit are not explained, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance to set them correctly.

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 Affise earnings over a date window with breakdowns by programme and transaction status. The example query 'total earnings in Q1 with status split' makes the use case concrete. It also distinguishes itself from list_transactions by positioning itself as a summary rather than a detailed record list.

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 provides an example. It suggests pairing with list_transactions to 'drill into the underlying records', which names an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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