affiliate_tolt_get_earnings_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type EarningsSummary and mentions the oldestUnpaidAgeDays field, plus the read-only nature of summarization. However, it does not detail potential pagination, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a useful example and drill-down hint without any fluff. Every sentence adds value, from the summary definition to the return field mention to the pairing suggestion.

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 annotations, and no output schema, the description provides high-level context and one return field but leaves significant gaps: parameter semantics, default behavior, edge cases, and full response structure. It is minimally adequate for a simple summary tool but not rich enough for complex filtering scenarios.

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 does not explain any of the 9 parameters. It vaguely alludes to a 'date window' and 'breakdowns by programme and status', but fails to define required brand or any filters like status, programmeId, maxAgeDays, or cursor. This leaves the agent to infer parameter meanings from names alone.

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 Tolt with breakdowns by programme and transaction status. It uses specific verbs and resource scope, and the 'single-figure answer plus context' phrasing distinguishes it from transaction-level tools like list_transactions.

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?

Provides an explicit usage case: 'when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' along with a concrete example. Also recommends pairing with list_transactions for deeper drill-down, which serves as guidance on alternatives. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear enough.

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