affiliate_value-commerce-advertiser_get_earnings_summary

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

The description adds some behavioral context by stating the return value includes 'oldestUnpaidAgeDays' and that it is a summary operation. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not explicitly disclose side-effect safety, authentication requirements, rate limits, or how pagination/filtering behaves (though 'cursor' exists in schema). It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage and output context. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives purpose, usage, and a hint about return content, but does not cover parameter details, return structure beyond one field, pagination, or potential errors. It is moderately complete but not self-sufficient for a 9-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'date window' (from/to), 'programme' (programmeId), and 'status' filters, but does not explain limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, minAgeDays, or brand semantics. With 9 parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct all arguments.

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's function: 'Summarise earnings on ValueCommerce (advertiser) across a date window, with breakdowns by programme and by transaction status.' It uses a specific verb ('Summarise') and resource ('earnings on ValueCommerce (advertiser)'), and the network-specific naming distinguishes it from other affiliate earnings summary siblings.

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 guidance is provided: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context — e.g. "total earnings in Q1 with status split".' It also suggests a complementary tool: 'pair with list_transactions to drill into the underlying records,' which tells the agent when to use this summary vs. a transaction list.

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