affiliate_firstpromoter_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return structure ('Returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays') and implies a read-only summarization operation. However, it does not mention pagination (despite limit/cursor parameters), authentication requirements, or error behavior. This is moderate transparency but leaves gaps.

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 concise at three sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, and return/hint. No redundant 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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good high-level summary and usage example, but lacks full parameter semantics (e.g., status allowed values, brand meaning) and does not fully describe the return object beyond one field. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for complex queries.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to some parameters: 'date window' (from/to), 'breakdowns by programme' (programmeId), and 'by transaction status' (status). It also mentions oldestUnpaidAgeDays corresponding to age filter params. However, limit, cursor, brand, and minAgeDays/maxAgeDays are not explained, leaving several parameters underspecified.

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 FirstPromoter across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' This specifies the verb (summarise), resource (earnings on FirstPromoter), and scope (date window, breakdowns), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by naming the network and the summary type.

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 tells when to use it: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context — e.g. "total earnings in Q1 with status split".' It also suggests a complementary tool: 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records.' This provides clear context and alternatives.

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