get_earnings_by_traffic_source

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output (revenue and RPM per source) but does not mention required date_range behavior, custom range requirements, data aggregation details, or any limitations. This is minimal beyond what the name already implies.

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 two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and output details. Every word earns its place—no filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only listing tool, the description conveys the core purpose and output. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance, does not mention the custom date_range dependency on start/end dates, and would benefit from noting what is not included. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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% since all three parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Get earnings breakdown by traffic source' with examples of sources (Google, Bing, Facebook, direct). It also specifies the output ('Shows revenue and RPM per source'), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_earnings_by_ad_format or get_country_breakdown.

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 when to use the tool (when you need earnings broken down by traffic source) but does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusions. Siblings exist but are not mentioned, so the agent gets no guidance on choosing this over get_earnings_summary or other breakdown tools.

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