affiliate_kwanko-advertiser_get_earnings_summary

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

The description discloses that the tool returns an aggregate 'EarningsSummary' including 'oldestUnpaidAgeDays', adding context beyond the name about response content and aggregation behavior. With no annotations provided, this is valuable, though it doesn't fully describe all behavioral nuances like pagination or date-window inclusivity.

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 only two sentences, both of which are purposeful: the first states the core function, the second adds usage context and return-field information. There is no 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?

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits essential details such as pagination (limit/cursor), date format, the meaning of required brand, and the full structure of the EarningsSummary. It only mentions one return field and gives a high-level overview, which is insufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for 9 parameters, and the description only vaguely refers to a 'date window' (from/to), 'status split' (status), and 'programme' breakdown (programmeId). It fails to explain required brand, limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays, so it does not sufficiently compensate for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states it 'Summarise earnings on Kwanko (advertiser) across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' This provides a specific verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions by describing its aggregate nature.

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 instructs 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and provides an example. It also points to list_transactions as the companion tool for drilling into underlying records, which clarifies the relationship and when to choose each.

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