affiliate_involve-asia_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays') and the breakdown dimensions (programme and transaction status), which goes beyond a mere op-name restatement. It does not mention authentication or side effects, but the read-only, summarising nature is clear from the description.

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, front-loads the purpose, and includes a concrete usage example plus a cross-reference to the related transaction-list tool. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition of schema field names.

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 the core purpose, when to use it, and the return type, but the tool has 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. Several parameters (limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays) and practical constraints like date formatting or pagination are not addressed, leaving a moderate gap for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It maps some concepts: date window (from/to), programme breakdown (programmeId), and transaction status (status), but it leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to use all parameters confidently.

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 + resource: 'Summarise earnings on Involve Asia across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' It clearly distinguishes this aggregate tool from sibling transaction-level tools by noting 'single-figure answer plus context' and explicitly pairing with list_transactions for drill-down.

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 tells the agent exactly when to use this tool: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context.' It also provides an explicit alternative/companion: 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records,' which clearly separates aggregation from detailed record retrieval.

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