affiliate_partnerstack-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 burden. It discloses the return type and a notable field (oldestUnpaidAgeDays), but does not mention authentication, pagination, rate limits, or side effects. It is a reasonable read-only summary, but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage and return details. No fluff, every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the core use case and return type, but with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, it leaves gaps. It does not explain all parameters or pagination, making it adequate but not fully complete for 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 implicitly covers 'from'/'to' (date window), 'programmeId' (by programme), and 'status' (by status), but leaves 'brand', 'cursor', 'limit', 'minAgeDays', and 'maxAgeDays' unexplained. Given 9 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 summarizes earnings on PartnerStack for advertisers, with breakdowns by programme and status. It uses a specific verb ('summarise') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling list/get 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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and provides an example ('total earnings in Q1 with status split'). It also suggests pairing with list_transactions for deeper analysis, which is clear guidance.

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