affiliate_cake_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. It discloses that the tool returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays, which adds value. However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, includes a concrete example, and mentions the return type and pairing suggestion. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding but lacks details on return fields and advanced parameters like limit/cursor. It is adequate for simple invocations but not fully complete for complex usage.

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 mentions 'date window' (for from/to), 'programme' (programmeId), and 'transaction status' (status), but fails to explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, or their types/formats. Partial compensation only.

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's function: 'Summarise earnings on CAKE across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_transactions by emphasizing the summary nature and mentioning CAKE specifically.

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', providing clear usage context. It also suggests pairing with list_transactions to drill into underlying records, which helps the agent choose between this and alternative tools. Does not mention exclusions for other tools, but the guidance is sufficient.

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