affiliate_shareasale_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 burden. It adds return-type context (EarningsSummary, oldestUnpaidAgeDays) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'summarise' and 'returns', but the description could be more explicit about safety behavior.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, then provide usage guidance and a return-value note. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary filler.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but not fully. It covers the primary use case and highlights a key return field, but does not explain all parameter combinations, pagination behavior, or edge cases. The suggestion to pair with list_transactions helps, but more detail on the available filters would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions date window (to/from), programme breakdown (programmeId), and status breakdown (status), which maps to the main parameters. However, it does not explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, or pagination semantics. The description adds value but leaves several parameters underdocumented.

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 specific action (summarise earnings), the resource (ShareASale), and the scope (date window with breakdowns by programme and transaction status). It distinguishes this tool from the many sibling get_earnings_summary tools by naming the network and explaining the output characteristics.

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 recommends pairing with list_transactions for deeper detail, which is clear guidance on alternatives.

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