affiliate_daisycon-advertiser_get_earnings_summary

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays) and aggregation behavior. However, it omits details about pagination (limit/cursor), authentication requirements, or rate limits, which are relevant for a network API.

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 purpose, and includes an example and a pointer to a related tool. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundant information.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main use case but omits explanations for several parameters (e.g., maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, cursor) and the full return structure. This leaves ambiguity for complex queries involving age filters or pagination.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It maps 'date window' to from/to, 'breakdown by programme' to programmeId, and 'status' to status, but leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays unexplained. This partial coverage is helpful but incomplete for a 9-parameter tool.

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: summarizing Daisycon advertiser earnings across a date window with breakdowns by programme and status. It specifically notes 'advertiser' to distinguish from publisher variants and provides an example use case, making it highly identifiable.

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 the tool ('when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context') and provides an example. It also recommends pairing with list_transactions for deeper detail, effectively directing the agent away from using this for transaction-level queries.

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