affiliate_leaddyno_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context about the return value (EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays) and implies a read-only summary operation, but it does not explicitly state safety profile, authorization needs, pagination behavior, or effects of parameters like maxAgeDays/minAgeDays. It is not misleading, but the disclosures are minimal.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage guidance, return information, and a pairing suggestion. Every sentence contributes value. The example is concrete and the structure is easy to parse.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to be comprehensive. It covers the core purpose, usage context, a return field, and points to a related tool. However, it omits details about many parameters, full output shape, and any potential limitations, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 does clarify key parameters: 'date window' maps to from/to, 'by programme' maps to programmeId, and 'by transaction status' maps to status. However, it leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, and brand semantics unexplained. With 9 parameters, this partial coverage is insufficient to earn a higher score.

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's function with a specific verb ('Summarise earnings on LeadDyno') and resource, including scope (date window, breakdowns by programme and transaction status). It also differentiates from sibling tools by naming LeadDyno and specifying the breakdown dimensions, making it unmistakable among the many get_earnings_summary variants.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' with a concrete example. It also names a complementary tool (list_transactions) for drilling into records. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or exclude alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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