affiliate_kwanko_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 burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays, which informs the agent about the return structure. It also implies an aggregate operation rather than a raw list by recommending pairing with list_transactions. It doesn't cover pagination behavior or date format, but it does disclose the essential nature of the 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, and return/companion guidance. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler or redundant terms.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and key return details (EarningsSummary, oldestUnpaidAgeDays). It omits pagination specifics and parameter formats, but the parameter names are mostly self-explanatory, and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool for the intended use case.

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 explains that the tool takes a date window (from/to) and provides breakdowns by programme (programmeId) and transaction status (status). The mention of oldestUnpaidAgeDays hints at age-based parameters like minAgeDays/maxAgeDays. However, limit, cursor, and exact formats for from/to are not explained, leaving ambiguity given 8 parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Summarise earnings on Kwanko') and clearly identifies the resource (earnings) and scope (date window, breakdowns by programme and transaction status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions, and the example ('total earnings in Q1 with status split') reinforces a distinct purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context'. It also tells the agent to 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records', providing an alternative for deeper detail. This is clear when/when-not guidance.

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