affiliate_refersion_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 itself. It mentions the return value ('Returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays'), which gives useful outcome context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention auth requirements, rate limits, or any potential side effects. For a summary tool this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns with a cross-reference. Front-loaded with the core action and free of fluff or repetition.

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 captures the main use case well but is incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It omits nearly all parameter semantics except the three main breakdowns, and only mentions one return field despite the complexity. The agent would still be uncertain about required fields, pagination behavior, and filtering options.

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 explains the date window (from/to), programme breakdown (programmeId), and status split (status), but leaves the required 'brand' parameter, pagination controls (limit, cursor), and age filters (maxAgeDays, minAgeDays) undocumented. This is a significant gap for a 9-parameter tool.

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 opens with 'Summarise earnings on Refersion', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning breakdowns by programme and status, and explicitly references pairing with list_transactions for drill-down, setting it apart from the transaction-level tool.

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 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and provides a concrete example ('total earnings in Q1 with status split'). It also names the alternative for deeper analysis ('pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records'), giving clear when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance.

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