affiliate_lomadee_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or any limitations/edge cases, though the summarization nature implies a safe read operation. This is a reasonable disclosure but not exhaustive.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence defines what the tool does; the second provides usage guidance and return context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 provides a clear use case, return shape, and a companion tool, which is good for selection. However, it does not explain all 8 parameters (e.g., cursor, maxAgeDays) nor the full output structure, relying on self-explanatory parameter names. Given the complexity and absence of schema descriptions, the description is 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?

The input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by referencing 'date window' (from/to), 'breakdowns by programme' (programmeId), and 'status' (status), but it does not explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays. This partial coverage leaves some parameters semantically ambiguous.

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 earnings on Lomadee across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and transaction status. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_transactions by focusing on the summary rather than individual records.

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 says 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and provides a concrete example. It also names list_transactions as a companion tool for drilling into underlying records, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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