affiliate_howl_get_earnings_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays') which adds useful behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but the summarization semantics imply a read-only operation.

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, each earning its place: purpose, usage scenario with example, and return/drill-down hint. It is front-loaded with the primary function and contains 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?

Despite good purpose and usage clarity, the description does not explain the semantics of many parameters (paginated cursor, age filters, limit) and offers no output schema or detailed return structure. With 8 optional parameters and no annotations, the agent is left without critical invocation details.

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, but it only hints at a few parameters (date window, status, programmeId) while leaving limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays unexplained. With 8 parameters, this is insufficient for the agent to understand how to populate or combine them.

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'), a clear resource ('earnings on Howl'), and explicit scope ('across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_transactions by framing the output as a 'single-figure answer plus context'.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' with a concrete example. It also points to list_transactions as an alternative for drilling down, which clarifies when to use the sibling tool. However, it stops short of fully listing exclusion criteria.

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