affiliate_shopmy_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. It discloses the return type (EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays) and mentions breakdowns, adding useful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain pagination behavior, date window inclusivity, or potential side effects (though as a read operation these are minimal). The description adds value but lacks a few behavioral details.

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 main action and resource, and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundancy, and it includes a useful example and related tool pointer. Efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (8 params) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description gives a solid overview of purpose, usage, and return value. It mentions the oldestUnpaidAgeDays field and the pairing with list_transactions, but does not detail all parameter semantics or potential pagination. Slightly incomplete for the full parameter set, but adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for date window (from/to), programme (programmeId), and status (status), which are core semantics. However, it does not explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays, leaving several parameters underspecified. Partial compensation only.

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 summarizes earnings on ShopMy with breakdowns by programme and status, using the specific verb 'summarise' and naming the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_transactions tools by focusing on aggregate/summary results rather than individual 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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' and provides a concrete example. It also suggests pairing with list_transactions for drilling into records, which helps the agent choose between the summary and transaction-level tools.

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