affiliate_linkconnector_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 discloses the return type ('EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays') and positions the tool as a summary/read operation. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover pagination or edge-case behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage and output details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, and some return details, but omits parameter semantics for several fields, pagination, and the full output structure. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 indirectly references 'date window' (to/from), 'programme' (programmeId), and 'transaction status' (status), but leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays completely unexplained. This is insufficient for 8 undocumented 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 clearly states the tool summarizes LinkConnector earnings over a date range with breakdowns by programme and transaction status. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the specific network (LinkConnector) and the summary focus, and it contrasts 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' with a concrete example. It also explicitly recommends pairing with list_transactions for deeper detail, making the alternative use case clear.

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