get_affiliate_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation returning aggregate data but does not disclose whether results are cached, real-time, or require specific permissions. For a simple summary tool, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 a single sentence of 15 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and output. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 parameterless tool with a clear purpose, the description is mostly sufficient. It explains the output but could benefit from mentioning the output structure or type (e.g., object with specific fields). However, given the simplicity, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description adds meaning by specifying the contents of the output (total sales, earnings, top performers), which compensates for the lack of output schema according to the baseline guideline for 0 parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'aggregate summary of all affiliate performance', listing included fields (total sales, earnings, top performers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_affiliate' (individual) and 'list_affiliates' (list without summary).

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 description implies usage for aggregate summaries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_affiliate' or 'get_financial_summary'. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.

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