affiliate_post-affiliate-pro_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 that the tool returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays, and 'summarise' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination (cursor/limit), filter semantics for status/age fields, or any authentication requirements, which are relevant behavioral details given the schema.

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 only two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. It efficiently packs usage guidance, example, return information, and a cross-tool recommendation without unnecessary filler.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits required 'brand' semantics, date format expectations, pagination behavior, and full return structure. It covers the core use case but leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly in edge cases.

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 clarifies the meaning of 'across a date window' (from/to) and mentions breakdowns by programme and status (programmeId/status), but leaves the required 'brand' parameter unexplained and does not cover 'limit', 'cursor', 'maxAgeDays', or 'minAgeDays'. 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 clearly states the tool's function: summarizing earnings on Post Affiliate Pro over a date window, with breakdowns by programme and transaction status. It explicitly names the specific network, distinguishing it from the many other get_earnings_summary sibling 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context', with a concrete example. It also suggests pairing with list_transactions for deeper drill-down, effectively naming an alternative tool.

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