affiliate_digistore24_get_earnings_summary

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing that the tool returns an EarningsSummary including the field oldestUnpaidAgeDays, and that it aggregates across date windows with programme/status breakdowns. It doesn't explicitly state read-only status or side effects, but the tool name and summary nature make this a read operation, and no annotation contradicts the description.

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 three sentences, leading with the main verb and scope, then usage guidance, then return details. Every sentence earns its place—there is no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 description captures the core use case and mentions a specific return field, but with no output schema and 8 parameters, it remains incomplete. It doesn't explain what maxAgeDays/minAgeDays do, even though the return field oldestUnpaidAgeDays hints at aging semantics. It also doesn't address pagination via cursor/limit, so an agent might not know how to fetch beyond the first page or filter by age. Given the complexity, more context is needed.

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 indirectly explains key parameters: 'date window' maps to from/to, 'breakdowns by programme and by transaction status' maps to programmeId and status. However, it does not mention cursor, limit, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays, which are likely pagination and aging filters. With 8 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is an important gap.

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: to summarise earnings on Digistore24 across a date window with breakdowns by programme and transaction status. It uses a specific verb ('summarise') and resource ('earnings on Digistore24'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_transactions by positioning itself as a summary-level answer.

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 when to use this tool: '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 names an alternative and points to it: 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records'. This is clear usage guidance with exclusions.

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