affiliate_tradedoubler-advertiser_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 the summary-oriented nature. However, it does not mention authentication, side effects, or limitations, though for a get/summary operation these are somewhat less critical. It adds some behavioral context beyond the name but is not exhaustive.

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, each earning its place: purpose, usage context, and return/pairing guidance. Information is front-loaded, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, high-level usage, and return type, and suggests pairing with list_transactions. However, it lacks parameter-level detail, especially the required `brand`, and does not explain pagination or filtering options, leaving the agent with gaps in selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'date window' (likely from/to), 'programme' (programmeId), and 'transaction status' (status), but it omits the required `brand` and does not explain `limit`, `cursor`, `maxAgeDays`, or `minAgeDays`. This is partial compensation, leaving many 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 uses a specific verb ('Summarise'), names the resource ('earnings on Tradedoubler (Advertiser)'), and specifies scope ('across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling earnings summary tools by explicitly noting the Advertiser role.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context', with a concrete example. Also names an alternative/complement: 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records', giving clear guidance on when to use this tool vs others.

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