Get Earnings Report

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds context by stating the report includes pending/escrow amounts and that it returns totals/averages plus per-contract breakdown. It does not contradict the annotations and provides return-format expectations that are not captured structurally.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence up front, a summary of contents, Args, and Returns. It is slightly redundant with the schema because the Args list repeats schema descriptions, but it remains compact and scannable.

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 Returns section compensates by describing what the caller will receive (totals, averages, per-contract breakdown). The tool is simple (zero required params, no nested objects) and the description covers purpose, parameters, defaults, and output shape, so only minor details like timezone or currency are missing.

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%, with all four parameters documented in the schema including defaults, patterns, and enums. The description's Args section largely duplicates this information and adds no significant new meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific operation and resource: 'Get your earnings report for a time period' and enumerates what is included (summary, breakdown by contract, pending/escrow). It is clearly distinct from siblings in substance, but does not explicitly reference a sibling or differentiate itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The first line provides a clear use case: retrieving earnings for a time period, with options for contract breakdown and pending amounts. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related siblings like upwork_get_transactions, upwork_get_connects, or upwork_list_contracts.

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