affiliate_eduzz_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays and positions it as a summary rather than a raw list. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, how limit/cursor affect results, or any filtering semantics beyond date and status/programme, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value: the action, the when-to-use guidance, and the return/companion pairing. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

This tool has 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the core use case and one return field, but it does not explain several important parameters (limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays), does not describe the full structure of EarningsSummary, and omits any mention of pagination or result format. For such a parameter-rich tool, this is insufficiently complete.

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 maps 'date window' to from/to and mentions breakdowns by programme and status, which likely correspond to programmeId and status parameters. However, it leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays completely unexplained, and does not clarify whether these parameters filter the summary or the breakdowns.

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 uses the specific verb 'Summarise earnings' with the resource 'on Eduzz' and clearly states the date window and breakdowns by programme and transaction status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_transactions by focusing on a single-figure summary rather than raw records.

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 ('total earnings in Q1 with status split'). It also names an alternative, 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records', giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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