affiliate_yieldkit_get_earnings_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return shape (EarningsSummary including oldestUnpaidAgeDays) and implies a read-only summarization operation, but it does not clarify how pagination parameters (limit, cursor) or status/programme filters affect the summary, leaving behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, an illustrative example, and a pairing hint. No redundant filler; each sentence adds meaningful 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 primary use case and return type, but with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, it leaves significant gaps: parameter behavior (especially pagination and age filters) and the full structure of the EarningsSummary are not explained. Adequate for a simple use case, but incomplete for complex queries.

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, but it only hints at date window (from/to), programme (programmeId), and status (status). It fails to explain 'limit', 'cursor', 'maxAgeDays', and 'minAgeDays', which are all present in the schema but undocumented both there and in the description.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Summarise earnings') and resource ('on Yieldkit across a date window'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the summary/breakdown nature (by programme and transaction status) versus listing transactions. The return type EarningsSummary is explicitly named.

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 guidance: 'Use this when the user wants a single-figure answer plus context' with a concrete example. Also recommends pairing with list_transactions for drill-down, effectively stating when to choose this tool over an alternative.

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