affiliate_scaleo_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the return type ('Returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays') and implies a read-only operation via 'Summarise', but it omits details such as pagination behavior (despite limit/cursor parameters), authentication requirements, or any side effects.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds a usage heuristic, and closes with return value and complementary tool. Each sentence contributes useful information.

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 the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks parameter-level detail and a full picture of the return object. It does mention 'oldestUnpaidAgeDays' and the pairing with list_transactions, but an agent would still be uncertain how to set parameters like maxAgeDays/minAgeDays or interpret pagination.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only indirectly references parameters: 'date window' (from/to), 'programme' (programmeId), and 'status' (status). It does not explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, or how they interact, leaving significant ambiguity for a tool with 8 optional parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarise') and resource ('earnings on Scaleo') with clear scope ('across a date window') and breakdown dimensions ('by programme and by transaction status'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transactions by focusing on summarized output rather than raw records.

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 states when to use the tool ('when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context') with a concrete example ('total earnings in Q1 with status split'), and suggests pairing with list_transactions to drill into details, which names an alternative/complementary tool.

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