affiliate_ebay_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 burden. It discloses the return type ('EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays') and mentions breakdowns, but does not discuss pagination, default date behavior, or potential side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 3 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage example, then return type and relationship to list_transactions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the complexity (8 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the primary use case and return type but omits details about parameter semantics, optionality, and pagination. The agent might not know whether from/to are truly optional or how maxAgeDays/minAgeDays behave.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and 8 parameters. The description adds meaning to some parameters via phrases like 'across a date window' (to/from) and 'breakdowns by programme and by transaction status' (programmeId/status), but it does not explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays, 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Summarise earnings on eBay Partner Network across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' It distinguishes from sibling list_transactions by positioning itself as a summary tool and explicitly suggesting pairing with list_transactions for drill-down.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context — e.g. "total earnings in Q1 with status split".' It also mentions an alternative ('pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records'), though it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool.

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