affiliate_coupang-partners_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return type (EarningsSummary) and a specific field (oldestUnpaidAgeDays), and indicates summary granularity. However, it omits behavioral details around pagination (schema includes cursor and limit, which is unreconciled with the 'single-figure' claim), authentication requirements, and default date handling. This partial disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by usage guidance and return information. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place. This is a model of concise, structured tool documentation.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It explains the summary use case and one return field, but does not state required inputs, default behavior, or how cursor/limit/age filters operate. An agent would need to guess critical invocation details, making the description incomplete for this complexity level.

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 vaguely references 'date window' (from/to), 'programme' (programmeId), and 'transaction status' (status), but leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays entirely unexplained. It does not clarify whether from/to are required or how age filters relate to the date window. The description adds only partial semantics for a minority of the 8 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 clearly states the specific verb and resource: 'Summarise earnings on Coupang Partners'. It differentiates from sibling tools by naming the network (Coupang Partners) and the aggregation function, explicitly distinguishing from list_transactions by mentioning 'single-figure answer plus context'. The inclusion of breakdowns by programme and transaction status further specifies the tool's scope.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context', and directs the agent to pair it with list_transactions for drilling into underlying records. This clearly indicates when to use the tool versus alternatives and names a complementary tool, meeting the highest bar for usage guidelines.

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