affiliate_rewardful_get_earnings_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays, which gives some return behavior context. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, explain pagination (limit/cursor), or note any permissions or side effects. The verb 'Summarise' implies read-only, but this is not stated.

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 the core function, followed by a usage example and a return/pairing note. Every sentence adds value and there is 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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and return type but omits detail on several parameters (brand, pagination via limit/cursor, age-range filters) and does not elaborate on the breakdown structure. It provides a useful overview but is not fully self-sufficient for a complex 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates partially by mapping 'date window' to from/to, 'breakdowns by programme' to programmeId, and 'by transaction status' to status. However, it does not explain brand, limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays, leaving several parameters ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb ('Summarise') and resource ('earnings on Rewardful') with clear scope: 'across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transactions by emphasizing a single-figure summary, and mentions 'Returns an EarningsSummary' to clarify 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' with a concrete example. It also provides guidance to 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records,' which clarifies when to use an alternative tool.

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