affiliate_awin-advertiser_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return type (EarningsSummary) and that it offers breakdowns, which is useful. However, it does not discuss pagination, auth requirements, rate limits, or how the various filtering parameters affect behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose, when to use, return info, and pairing suggestion. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the primary function and remains easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides useful context: purpose, example query, return field, and a pointer to list_transactions. However, it lacks parameter explanations, pagination behavior, and a full return description, so it is not fully complete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 hints at 'date window' (from/to), 'breakdowns by programme' (programmeId), and 'by transaction status' (status), but many parameters (limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, brand) are not explained. The required 'brand' parameter is not even mentioned. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter schema.

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 Awin advertiser earnings with breakdowns by programme and status. It uses a specific verb ('Summarise') and identifies the resource ('Awin (advertiser)'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'affiliate_awin_get_earnings_summary' (likely the publisher counterpart), relying on the 'advertiser' qualifier in the name and description.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context, with an example ('total earnings in Q1 with status split'). It also names an alternative for deeper detail ('pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records'), giving clear usage guidance.

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