affiliate_effiliation_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 does disclose that the tool returns an EarningsSummary with oldestUnpaidAgeDays and mentions the pairing with list_transactions, which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, mention any permissions or rate limits, or clarify how the date window or status filtering affects results. The absence of annotations makes this only minimally adequate.

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 long, front-loads the core purpose and output, includes a concrete example, and provides cross-referencing guidance. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers about half the parameter semantics and provides some output context (EarningsSummary, oldestUnpaidAgeDays). It also explains the relationship with list_transactions. However, it leaves gaps around pagination, age filters, and full output structure, making it only partially complete for a tool of this complexity.

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, and 'breakdowns by programme and status' to programmeId and status. However, it does not explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays, leaving 5 of 8 parameters semantically unclear. The names alone are insufficient for correct invocation, especially age filters and pagination.

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 'summarises earnings on Effiliation across a date window' with breakdowns by programme and transaction status. It distinguishes this from the sibling list_transactions by explicitly positioning it as a summary tool for single-figure answers, and the example ('total earnings in Q1 with status split') makes the output concrete.

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 to use this tool when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context, and names list_transactions as the complementary tool for drilling into underlying records. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance, matching the high bar set in calibration examples.

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