affiliate_pepperjam_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond the name by clarifying that the tool returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays, which hints at the return structure. It appropriately implies a read-only aggregation behavior without needing to state destructive effects, though it omits details like auth requirements or response format.

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, all purposeful. It front-loads the core action ('Summarise earnings'), then explains when to use it with an example, and finally notes the return value and a related tool. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main purpose and gives an example, but it does not fully describe the return structure (only mentions one field) or clarify parameter relationships like minAgeDays/maxAgeDays vs from/to. It is enough to get started but not fully complete for a complex 8-param tool.

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?

The description provides some semantic mapping for parameters: 'date window' implies from/to, 'by programme' maps to programmeId, and 'by transaction status' maps to status. However, with schema description coverage at 0%, it does not explain the meaning or default behavior of limit, cursor, minAgeDays, maxAgeDays, or how the status parameter accepts multiple values, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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') and identifies the resource (earnings on Pepperjam) with clear scope ('date window', 'breakdowns by programme and by transaction status'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_transactions by emphasizing the single-figure answer with context, and provides a concrete example ('total earnings in Q1 with status split').

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context'. It also gives a clear alternative for deeper investigation: 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records'. This is direct, unambiguous guidance for the agent.

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