affiliate_value-commerce_get_earnings_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful detail: returns an EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays, and describes scope/breakdowns. However, it does not disclose read-only status, default behavior, pagination, or edge cases such as missing date ranges, which leaves some behavioral ambiguity for an 8-parameter tool.

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 the verb and resource, and includes an example plus a sibling pairing. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It covers the core use case and return field but omits details for 4 parameters, pagination, date formats, and any caveats, leaving the agent to guess on important invocation details.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains the date window (to/from), programme breakdown (programmeId), and status breakdown (status). However, it leaves limit, cursor, maxAgeDays, and minAgeDays unexplained, so parameter semantics are only partially covered.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Summarise earnings on ValueCommerce') and clearly states scope ('across a date window') and breakdown dimensions ('by programme and by transaction status'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming ValueCommerce and focusing on summary rather than raw transaction listing.

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: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context', with a concrete example. It also points to list_transactions for drill-down, providing a clear complementary alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is strong enough.

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