affiliate_indoleads_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. It adds useful context by mentioning the return type EarningsSummary and the oldestUnpaidAgeDays field. However, it does not discuss any side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or edge cases, leaving the behavioral profile mostly implicit.

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 concise, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, and return/drill-down guidance. It includes a concrete example without unnecessary padding.

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 has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps. It does not explain how from/to relate to minAgeDays/maxAgeDays, how pagination (limit/cursor) works, or whether parameters are mutually exclusive. The description is adequate for simple use but incomplete for robust selection and 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 coverage is 0% and the description only loosely references date window (from/to), programme (programmeId), and status. It fails to explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, and the exact meaning of status values or date formats. With 8 parameters, this is insufficient compensation.

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 tool summarizes earnings on Indoleads across a date window with breakdowns by programme and transaction status, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling summary tools for other networks and from Indoleads' list_transactions by focusing on aggregation.

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 says to use when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context, giving an example. It also recommends pairing with list_transactions to drill into underlying records, effectively naming an alternative and providing guidance on when this tool is appropriate.

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