affiliate_connexity_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by specifying the return type (EarningsSummary), highlights a notable field (oldestUnpaidAgeDays), and explains how it complements list_transactions for drill-down. It does not cover all possible side effects or auth requirements, but for an earnings summary read operation, this is adequate.

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 efficient sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return/pairing context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant text. The front-loaded description immediately states the core function.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description is the sole documentation source. It covers the main use case and return type but does not explain the meaning of all parameters (e.g., cursor, limit, maxAgeDays interaction with date window) or the semantics of 'oldestUnpaidAgeDays' beyond its name. This is sufficient for a simple summary but not fully complete for advanced 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains 'to'/'from' via 'date window', 'programmeId' via 'by programme', and 'status' via 'by transaction status'. However, it leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays undefined. The mention of oldestUnpaidAgeDays hints at age-related parameters but does not explicitly connect them, leaving gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Summarise earnings on Connexity across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_transactions (which lists individual records) and list_clicks. The example use case further reinforces its purpose.

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: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context — e.g. "total earnings in Q1 with status split".' This directly addresses selection criteria, and the pairing guidance with list_transactions ('pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records') clarifies the relationship with an alternative tool.

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