affiliate_profitshare_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type (`EarningsSummary` including `oldestUnpaidAgeDays`) and indicates this is a summary-level operation by pairing with `list_transactions` for details. It does not explicitly mention read-only behavior or potential pagination nuances, but the provided context is genuinely helpful.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance and return information. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a clear purpose, usage context, and partial return/relationship info. However, it omits details on pagination (`limit`, `cursor`) and age filters (`maxAgeDays`, `minAgeDays`), and the return summary is only partially described. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It gives context for `from`/`to` via 'date window', and for `programmeId`/`status` via 'breakdowns by programme and by transaction status'. However, it does not explain `limit`, `cursor`, `maxAgeDays`, or `minAgeDays`, leaving several parameters semantically unexplained.

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 ('Summarise earnings') and resource ('Profitshare'), and specifies breakdowns by programme and transaction status. It distinguishes itself from sibling `list_transactions` tools by emphasizing summarization rather than raw transaction data.

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 the tool: 'when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context', and provides a concrete example. It also suggests pairing with `list_transactions` to drill into underlying records, giving an alternative/complement.

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