affiliate_growsurf_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key output field (oldestUnpaidAgeDays) and the summary nature of the response, but it does not mention pagination, defaults for date ranges, whether the operation is read-only (though 'Summarise' implies it), or any prerequisites like required brand. It adds some value but lacks rich behavioral context.

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 about 50 words across three sentences, with no fluff. It front-loads the core action, then usage guidance, then output and relationship to a sibling tool. Every sentence adds value and is efficiently structured.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview of purpose, usage, a sample output field, and a drill-down sibling, but it lacks essential details on parameter formats, required fields, defaults, and full output shape. It is adequate for basic selection but incomplete for full invocation without guessing parameter semantics.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to some parameters: 'date window' implies from/to, 'breakdowns by programme' implies programmeId, and 'status split' implies status. However, it leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, and brand (which is required) unexplained. The partial coverage prevents a higher score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarise earnings') and resource ('earnings on GrowSurf') with explicit scoping ('across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transactions and other providers' get_earnings_summary, and the example ('total earnings in Q1 with status split') reinforces the purpose.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context'. It also contrasts with a complementary tool ('pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records'), providing a clear alternative for when more detail is needed. This is explicit guidance beyond just naming the tool.

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