affiliate_commission-factory_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 full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it stops short of describing any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, so it is not fully 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?

The description is two sentences with an embedded example, front-loading the core purpose and adding practical guidance without any fluff. Every clause 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?

Given the tool's 8 optional parameters, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description covers the primary use case and discloses a key return field. It does not explain all parameters or the full EarningsSummary structure, but it is adequate for an agent to select the tool and understand its general behavior.

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 relates the date window to from/to and breakdowns to programmeId/status, but leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays unexplained. This partial coverage is helpful but insufficient for complete parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Summarise', the resource 'earnings on Commission Factory', and specific scope: a date window with breakdowns by programme and transaction status. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_transactions by presenting itself as a summary rather than transaction-level detail.

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' and provides a concrete example ('total earnings in Q1 with status split'). It also recommends pairing with list_transactions for drilling into underlying records, establishing a clear alternative and an implicit when-not-to-use-this-for-detail.

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