affiliate_impact_get_earnings_summary

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It adds value by revealing a specific return field (oldestUnpaidAgeDays) and clarifying the output type (EarningsSummary). However, it does not disclose default behavior for missing parameters, pagination semantics, or any potential side effects, leaving gaps for an 8-parameter tool.

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?

Three sentences, no redundancy. The description leads with the core function, then usage guidance, then a return value detail. Every sentence serves a purpose and the structure is highly scannable.

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 a clear core use case, the tool has 8 parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only discloses one return field and does not cover pagination, filtering semantics, or parameter formats, which is insufficient for reliable agent 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%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly maps 'date window' to from/to, 'programme' to programmeId, and 'status' to status. Parameters such as limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, and to/from formats are unexplained, making it hard for an agent to correctly populate 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Summarise earnings') on a specific resource ('Impact') with clear scope parameters (date window, breakdowns by programme and status). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the network ('Impact') and from transaction-level tools by emphasizing 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' with a concrete example ('total earnings in Q1 with status split'). It also names the companion tool 'list_transactions' for deeper drilling, providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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