affiliate_optimise-media_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the return type (EarningsSummary) and a specific field (oldestUnpaidAgeDays), which adds value. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, how date windows are handled, or any pagination/side-effect behavior, leaving gaps.

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 three sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose, usage guidance, and return-value note. It is tight and each sentence earns its place, though one additional clause about age filters could improve it without being verbose.

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 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps. It doesn't document pagination or age filters, doesn't explain default ranges, and only mentions one return field. While it provides purpose and usage, it is not complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with all options.

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 implicitly covers the date window (from/to), programmeId, and status, but gives no explanation for limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays. The output mention of oldestUnpaidAgeDays does not illuminate these input 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 summarises earnings on Optimise Media across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and transaction status. This distinguishes it from other network-specific earnings summary tools and from list_transactions, which is explicitly positioned as the drill-down companion.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and gives a concrete example. It also names list_transactions as the tool to pair with for underlying records, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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