affiliate_financeads_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 for behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds that the tool 'Returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays' and mentions breakdowns, but it does not cover pagination, filtering behavior, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The description adds some value beyond the name but omits significant behavioral details.

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 with a clear front-loaded purpose. Each sentence earns its place: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns/pairs with. No fluff or repetition.

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 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to set the date window, how status filtering works, or what the returned EarningsSummary contains beyond one field. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without further guidance.

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. It only hints at 'date window', 'programme', and 'status' but does not explain key parameters like to/from format, limit/cursor pagination, minAgeDays/maxAgeDays meaning, or valid status values. The agent cannot reliably infer parameter semantics from this description.

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 'Summarise earnings on financeAds across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like list_transactions (which provides raw records) and get_programme (which returns programme details).

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and suggests pairing with list_transactions for drill-down. This provides clear context and an alternative, though it does not explicitly state 'do not use for transaction-level detail'.

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