affiliate_rakuten_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (EarningsSummary) and a notable field (oldestUnpaidAgeDays), and implies a read-only summarisation operation. However, it does not explicitly mention authentication needs, side effects, or default behaviour when no date range is given.

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, each adding distinct value: purpose, usage guidance, and return hint. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant wording.

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 tool's purpose, usage, and return type, which is helpful. However, the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description leaves gaps around pagination, age filters (min/maxAgeDays), and default behaviour when no filters are provided. It is adequate but not complete for a tool of this 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?

The schema has 8 undocumented parameters (0% coverage). The description hints at a date window (from/to), programme (programmeId), and status, but leaves limit, cursor, minAgeDays, and maxAgeDays unexplained. It does not name any parameters explicitly, so the agent must infer mapping from natural language, which is insufficient for such a large parameter set.

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 summarises earnings on Rakuten Advertising with breakdowns by programme and transaction status. It uses a specific verb ('summarise') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_transactions by describing the higher-level nature of the output.

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 when to use this tool ('when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context') and provides an example. It also directs users to pair with list_transactions for deeper detail, effectively framing the choice against the alternative.

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