affiliate_cj_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses return type (EarningsSummary) and a notable field (oldestUnpaidAgeDays), implying read-only behavior. However, it omits pagination behavior, filtering semantics, and any rate limits or auth requirements. The mention of breakdowns suggests output structure but is ambiguous (could be filters).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and an example, followed by return info and a pairing suggestion. Every sentence earns its place 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and no annotations/output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain pagination parameters (limit/cursor), age filters (min/maxAgeDays), or the full shape of the returned summary. The example and pairing hint are helpful, but the agent is left guessing on many invocation 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 coverage is 0% and the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It indirectly covers date window (from/to), status, and programme, but entirely misses limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays. This leaves the agent without enough to correctly set these five 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 uses a specific verb ('Summarise') and resource ('earnings on CJ Affiliate') with clear scope (date window, breakdowns by programme and transaction status). It distinguishes from siblings by naming the network and focusing on summary rather than 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: 'when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' with an example. Also prescribes complementary use with list_transactions to drill into records. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives for other summary tools, but the network-specific naming handles that.

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