affiliate_monetizze_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: returns an EarningsSummary with oldestUnpaidAgeDays, and implies a read-only aggregation ('summarise'). However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or edge cases like date window defaults or empty results.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide usage context and a cross-reference. Every sentence adds value, including an example and the return field mention.

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 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives an overview but fails to explain return structure beyond one field, parameter semantics for filtering, pagination behavior, or the meaning of maxAgeDays/minAgeDays. This is insufficient for confident invocation without additional assumptions.

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 hints at date window (from/to), programme (programmeId), and status (status), but leaves five other parameters (limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays) unexplained. The description does not clarify how these parameters affect the summary, especially pagination and age-based filters.

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: 'Summarise earnings on Monetizze across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' It uses a specific verb (summarise), identifies the resource (earnings on Monetizze), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_transactions by emphasizing the summary/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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, including a concrete example.

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