affiliate_partnerstack_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return type (EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays) and the breakdown dimension, but does not mention auth requirements, pagination behavior, or what the summary object structurally contains beyond one field. This provides some context but leaves 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?

Two sentences, each with clear value: the first defines the action and breakdowns, the second gives usage guidance, an example, return info, and a pairing suggestion. No filler or 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core purpose and gives a usage example, but lacks details on parameter formats (e.g., date window syntax, status values) and the full return shape. It is adequate for tool selection but not fully complete for invocation without additional inference.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'date window' (from/to), 'transaction status' (status), and 'programme' (programmeId), but leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays unexplained. Partial compensation only.

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 precisely states what the tool does: 'Summarise earnings on PartnerStack across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' It clearly names the platform, the resource (earnings), and the action (summarise), and differentiates itself from sibling tools like list_transactions by noting it provides 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 says 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context', providing a clear trigger condition with an example. It also recommends pairing with list_transactions for deeper detail. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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