affiliate_commission-factory-advertiser_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays') and aggregation behavior, but does not mention prerequisites, data freshness, or any side effects. This is adequate for a basic read-only summarization tool, but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose, then provide usage guidance and a pointer to the related list_transactions tool. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides the core purpose and a hint at the return object, but leaves significant gaps: it fails to explain the required brand parameter or the alternative age-based filters. An agent would struggle to correctly set non-obvious parameters like maxAgeDays or understand pagination via cursor. The mention of list_transactions is helpful but insufficient for full invocation confidence.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and 9 parameters. The description only maps 'date window' to from/to and 'breakdowns' to programmeId/status. It does not explain the required 'brand' parameter, nor limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, which remain ambiguous without schema descriptions. This is insufficient compensation for the coverage gap.

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 Commission Factory (advertiser) across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions and other networks' earnings summaries.

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 it: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context — e.g. total earnings in Q1 with status split.' It also points to an alternative: 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records,' which is exactly the kind of when-to-use vs alternatives guidance the rubric rewards.

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