affiliate_flipkart_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It adds value by mentioning the return type (EarningsSummary) and the field oldestUnpaidAgeDays. However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, nor mention pagination, timezone handling, or any side effects. For a summary tool this is a moderate disclosure.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a usage example. Every sentence earns its place.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, a complete description would need to explain parameter semantics and the return structure. While the purpose and usage are clear, the lack of parameter details and the partial return description leave an agent guessing about pagination and age filters. This is a significant gap.

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 define any of the 8 parameters. It loosely implies 'from'/'to' via 'date window,' 'programmeId' via 'breakdowns by programme,' and 'status' via 'transaction status,' but completely leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate parameters.

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 core function: 'Summarise earnings on Flipkart Affiliate across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the Flipkart naming distinguishes it from the many sibling get_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?

It explicitly identifies the right context: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and advises pairing with list_transactions for deeper investigation. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and an alternative.

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