Get Your Incentive Earnings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are pre-aggregated per (market, date) pair and dates are in Eastern Time. It says nothing about pagination, result caps, or what an entry contains, which matters since the schema's query object mentions pagination but exposes no pagination fields.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose plus the non-obvious aggregation/timezone semantics are front-loaded. Nothing redundant with the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description does some of that work by explaining the entry grain and timezone. But it omits pagination behavior, any indication of entry fields, and the distinction from the incentive-programs tool, leaving real gaps for a read tool whose return shape is otherwise undefined.

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 100%, so all four nested query fields (start_date, end_date, market_slug, program_type) are documented with formats and defaults. The description adds only the Eastern Time framing, which applies to result grouping rather than clarifying the input filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns rewards earned by the authenticated caller, plus the aggregation grain (one entry per market/date pair). An agent can distinguish this from get_incentive_programs, which lists program definitions rather than the caller's payouts, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'authenticated caller' — this is the per-user earnings view — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to an alternative such as get_incentive_programs for program metadata. The agent must infer the boundary.

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