affiliate_cj-advertiser_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by stating the return type (EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays) but does not mention limitations, rate limits, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior. It provides some value but lacks comprehensive 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 compact, using two sentences to convey purpose, usage, and return type. The example and pairing advice are valuable and add no unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and return type, and differentiates from list_transactions. However, with no annotations or output schema and 9 parameters, it omits key parameter semantics, making it only partially complete for a summary tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies meaning for 'date window' (from/to), 'by programme' (programmeId), and 'by transaction status' (status), covering the most relevant parameters. However, it leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, and brand undocumented, which is a significant gap for a 9-parameter tool.

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 CJ Affiliate (advertiser) earnings across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and status. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the advertiser scope and providing an example use case that contrasts with list_transactions.

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 instructs when to use this tool ('Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context') and gives a concrete example. It also recommends pairing with list_transactions to drill into underlying records, which is an explicit alternative.

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