affiliate_partnero_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals return type ('Returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays') and notes the tool is a summary/read operation, plus suggests pairing with list_transactions for underlying records. It does not detail auth requirements or pagination, but the non-destructive nature is clear.

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?

Three tightly written sentences pack the purpose, usage context, return detail, and a cross-reference to list_transactions. No fluff or repetition; each 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the overall purpose and a few key parameters but omits explanations for pagination parameters (cursor, limit) and filtering by age (maxAgeDays, minAgeDays). It is helpful but not fully complete given the tool's complexity.

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 semantic meaning to key parameters: 'date window' maps to from/to, 'by programme' to programmeId, 'by transaction status' to status. However, it leaves other parameters (cursor, limit, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays) unexplained, providing only partial compensation.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Summarise earnings on Partnero across a date window', adding breakdowns by programme and transaction status. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_transactions by noting the summary-level granularity and explicitly recommending pairing with list_transactions for drill-down.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context', with a concrete example. It also names an alternative (list_transactions) for deeper record-level inspection, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list other alternative tools.

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