affiliate_ehub_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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return type ('Returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays') and hints at the summary-level nature, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention authentication requirements, or describe any side effects. Some context is added, but significant safety/behavioral detail is missing.

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 with an embedded example and a pairing suggestion. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. Every sentence provides useful context, making it highly 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?

Given the tool complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It mentions a return object and pairing, but does not explain the full output structure, parameter semantics, or edge cases like whether from/to are required. An agent would lack sufficient information to use this tool reliably beyond a basic summary request.

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%, and the description does not compensate adequately. It vaguely references 'date window' (likely to/from) and 'programme' and 'transaction status' breakdowns, but it does not explain the meaning or format of 8 parameters (including limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, programmeId, status). This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct invocations with proper parameter values.

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 eHUB across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' It specifies a specific verb ('Summarise'), a resource ('earnings on eHUB'), and distinguishes itself from list_transactions by indicating it provides a summary rather than individual records. The tool name and description align with the sibling pattern for earnings summary tools.

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 gives 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"' and suggests pairing with list_transactions for drill-down. This provides a clear use case and an alternative for more detailed exploration, satisfying the requirement for explicit usage direction.

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