affiliate_hotmart_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays, and implies aggregation via 'single-figure answer.' However, it does not mention authentication requirements, date-window limits, or whether historical data is mutable. There is no contradiction, but richer behavioral context (e.g., timezone/currency assumptions) would be expected for zero annotations.

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?

Two sentences, both purposeful. The first states the core function; the second provides usage context, an example, return-field information, and a pointer to a sibling tool. No filler 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?

The description gives a good high-level understanding and connects to list_transactions, but with 8 parameters and no output schema, it omits important operational details like pagination behavior, default date range, and meaning of maxAgeDays/minAgeDays. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for advanced invocation.

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% for 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'date window' (from/to), 'programme' (programmeId), and 'status' (status), but leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays unexplained. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Summarise earnings on Hotmart across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' It clearly distinguishes this summary tool from sibling list_transactions and list_programmes tools by emphasizing aggregate output and specific breakdowns.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context — e.g. "total earnings in Q1 with status split".' It also names an alternative for deeper detail: 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records.' This is clear usage guidance vs alternatives.

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