affiliate_daisycon_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 it 'Returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays', which provides some return structure. However, it does not mention pagination behavior despite having cursor and limit parameters, nor does it explicitly state whether the operation is safe/read-only. This is a moderate disclosure but incomplete.

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 core purpose, and includes a concrete example and a cross-reference to list_transactions. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary detail, making it concise and well-structured.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanations for important parameters (limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays), does not clarify pagination or defaults, and only mentions one return field. The agent would need to infer too much to use it correctly.

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 implicitly maps 'date window' to from/to, 'status' to status, and 'programme' to programmeId, but does not explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays. These parameters are left undocumented, making it difficult for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 action: 'Summarise earnings on Daisycon across a date window' with 'breakdowns by programme and by transaction status'. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from list_transactions and other network-specific summary tools. The example 'total earnings in Q1 with status split' further reinforces the intended use.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and provides an example. It also mentions pairing with list_transactions to drill into underlying records, which is an alternative usage. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for transaction-level details), though the pairing suggestion implies it.

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