affiliate_partnerize-advertiser_get_earnings_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return type ('Returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays') but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires specific authentication, or how pagination/limit/cursor behave. This partial disclosure is insufficient for a safe and effective AI invocation.

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 long and front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidance and return information. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. It gives a good overview and return type, but does not explain pagination parameters, age filters, or how the brand context is resolved. An agent would need additional information to confidently invoke this tool with all intended filters.

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 the purpose of date filters ('date window'), programme breakdown ('programme'), and status ('transaction status'), but several parameters (limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays) are not explained at all. The 'brand' required parameter is also not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone.

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 Partnerize (Advertiser) across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope and differentiates from sibling tools like list_transactions and other networks' earnings summaries by explicitly mentioning 'Advertiser' and the summary 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and suggests pairing with list_transactions for drill-down. This tells the agent when to choose this tool versus the alternative, satisfying the 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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