get_commission

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to deliver. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation (likely, but not stated), whether it requires authentication, what the return format looks like, if there are rate limits, or if it's paginated (though parameters suggest pagination). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the minimal verb 'Get'.

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 extremely concise with just three words: 'Get commission summary'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. While it's under-specified, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose.

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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'commission summary' contains, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits. For a tool that presumably returns financial data, more context about the return format and usage would be needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('page' and 'limit') documented in the schema as pagination controls. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how pagination works, default values, or parameter interactions. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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 'Get commission summary' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_commission'. It doesn't specify what kind of commission (sales commission, affiliate commission, etc.) or what 'summary' entails (aggregated totals, detailed breakdown, etc.). While it includes a verb ('Get') and resource ('commission summary'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from potential sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_sale', 'list_sales', or 'list_users' that might relate to commission data. There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate or when other tools should be used instead.

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