affiliate_offer18_get_earnings_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays, which adds some behavioral context, but it does not mention authentication needs, side effects (though it's likely read-only), pagination behavior, or error handling. With such a high burden, more disclosure would be expected.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and return value information. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 8 parameters, the description is moderately complete: it explains the primary function, when to use it, and a key return field. However, it omits details about parameter formats, pagination, and the full structure of the EarningsSummary return, which would be valuable given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 gives meaning to 'date window' (from/to), 'breakdowns by programme' (programmeId), and 'transaction status' (status), covering 3 of 8 parameters. However, it does not explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, or the exact format of values, leaving significant gaps.

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 what the tool does: 'Summarise earnings on Offer18 across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' This specifies the verb (summarise), resource (earnings on Offer18), and scope, distinguishing it from list_transactions and other summary tools.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use it: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context — e.g. "total earnings in Q1 with status split".' Also provides a complementary alternative: 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records.'

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