affiliate_tradetracker_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 discloses the return type ('EarningsSummary') and a notable field ('oldestUnpaidAgeDays'), and implies a read-only aggregation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it discuss default behaviors or edge cases, so transparency is good but 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?

Three tightly constructed sentences: purpose, usage example, and return/pairing note. No redundant phrasing; all sentences add new 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?

The description covers the tool's core purpose, example use, return type, and relationship to list_transactions. However, with no output schema and no param descriptions, it omits details about pagination (cursor/limit), the meaning of maxAgeDays/minAgeDays, and the full shape of the returned EarningsSummary beyond one field.

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?

All 8 parameters are undocumented in the schema (0% coverage). The description gives contextual hints for a date window (from/to), programme (programmeId), and status, but does not explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, or minAgeDays, and does not specify parameter names or formats. It partially compensates but leaves substantial ambiguity.

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 identifies the resource ('earnings on TradeTracker') with a date window, plus breakdowns by programme and transaction status. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transactions by indicating this provides a summary rather than raw 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context', and gives a concrete example ('total earnings in Q1 with status split'). It also references the alternative 'pair with list_transactions' for drilling into records, providing a clear comparison.

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