affiliate_everflow_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 transparency burden. It does state that the tool returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, auth requirements, or side effects (though these are inferable from the 'summarise' verb). It fails to disclose pagination behavior or timezone handling, leaving some ambiguity for a safe invocation.

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 long and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: function, usage context, and return/companion tool. 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 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a good high-level overview but lacks critical details. It does not explain the purpose of limit/cursor/maxAgeDays/minAgeDays, nor does it describe the full return structure beyond one field. For an agent to use advanced filtering or pagination, it would need additional documentation.

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 input schema has zero property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the date window (from, to), programme breakdown (programmeId), and status breakdown (status). However, it leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays completely unexplained, which are less self-explanatory and could affect correct invocation.

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 a specific action ('Summarise earnings on Everflow'), identifies the resource (earnings), and specifies breakdown dimensions (programme, transaction status). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on summary rather than granular transactions, and explicitly pairs itself with list_transactions for deeper 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?

The description gives an explicit usage criterion: 'when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context', and provides a concrete example. It also advises pairing with list_transactions for underlying records, which clearly signals when this tool is appropriate versus an alternative.

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