affiliate_partnerize_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. It discloses key behavioral aspects such as the return of an EarningsSummary, the inclusion of oldestUnpaidAgeDays, and the aggregate nature vs. list_transactions. However, it omits details about pagination, date format requirements, or whether authentication is needed, leaving some behavioral 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 no waste. It front-loads the purpose, provides a usage example, and ends with a useful pairing note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose, use case, a return field, and a sibling relationship, but it leaves the output structure vague and does not address all parameters (e.g., limit, cursor) or edge cases. This makes it viable 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?

With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for date window (from/to), programme breakdown (programmeId), and status split (status), plus hints about age via oldestUnpaidAgeDays. However, limit and cursor are not explained, and date formats are unspecified, so parameter semantics are only partially compensated.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarise earnings') with a clear resource (Partnerize) and scope (date window, breakdowns by programme and transaction status). It also distinguishes itself from sibling list_transactions tools by emphasizing a single-figure answer with context.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context') and gives a concrete example. It also names list_transactions as the complement for drilling into underlying records, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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