affiliate_afilio_get_earnings_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the return type (EarningsSummary), mentions oldestUnpaidAgeDays, and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (despite limit/cursor params), date handling, or auth requirements, which are meaningful gaps for a tool with no structured metadata.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and return/pairing hints. Every sentence adds information with no 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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the primary use case and return highlight but leaves parameter semantics (especially pagination and age filters) and the full response structure undocumented. The agent cannot reliably determine how to set all parameters or interpret the full output.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify parameters. It does imply the roles of from/to (date window), status (status breakdown), and programmeId (programme breakdown), but it leaves limit, cursor, minAgeDays, and maxAgeDays unexplained. Partial compensation is provided, but not sufficient for all 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 Afilio across a date window with breakdowns by programme and status. It provides a concrete usage example and distinguishes itself from list_transactions by focusing on a single-figure answer with context.

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 this tool ('when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context') and names a sibling tool (list_transactions) as the alternative for drilling into underlying records. This gives clear selection criteria.

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