affiliate_everflow-advertiser_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays, which is behavioral information beyond the name. It also implies a read-only, summarizing operation. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or potential side effects, leaving some gaps for a complex tool with params like cursor and limit.

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, each earning its place. The first sentence states purpose, the second gives usage context with an example, and the third discloses a return field and suggests a complementary tool. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description has notable gaps. It does not explain pagination (limit/cursor), the meaning of brand, possible status values, or the exact structure of EarningsSummary beyond one field. While the main purpose and usage are clear, the lack of detail for a 9-parameter tool makes it only partially 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 adds meaning for several parameters: 'across a date window' maps to from/to, 'breakdowns by programme' maps to programmeId, and 'by transaction status' maps to status. The mention of oldestUnpaidAgeDays hints at age-related fields like maxAgeDays/minAgeDays. However, it does not explain brand, limit, or cursor, leaving some major parameters undocumented.

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 Everflow (Advertiser) across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' This gives a specific verb (summarise), resource (earnings on Everflow), and scope (date window, breakdowns). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'Advertiser' and hinting at its summary nature versus list_transactions.

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 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 suggests pairing with list_transactions to drill into underlying records, effectively differentiating from the transaction list tool. This meets the bar for clear usage context and alternative identification.

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