get_earnings_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does add the qualifier 'estimated earnings' and lists output metrics, but it does not disclose potential data latency, account-level aggregation, permission requirements, or any side effects beyond a read operation. This is minimal behavioral disclosure, though the read-only nature is implicit in the 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 two concise sentences: the first states the primary action and scope, the second lists the returned metrics. It is front-loaded, has no filler, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 three-parameter tool with a well-documented schema and no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates the core purpose and expected return fields. It lacks some nuances like what 'estimated' means in practice or whether results are aggregated across the whole account, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's basic function.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (date_range enum, start_date, end_date) and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'date range' aligns with the primary parameter, but it does not add additional meaning about date format dependencies or the custom range requirement that the schema already documents.

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 resource ('AdSense earnings summary') with an explicit scope ('for a date range'). It clearly enumerates the return metrics (estimated earnings, page views, impressions, clicks, CTR, RPM), which distinguishes it from sibling breakdown tools that focus on individual dimensions like pages or countries.

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 like get_top_pages, get_country_breakdown, or compare_date_ranges. It implies a general summary use case but does not state exclusions, alternatives, or conditions for choosing this tool over others.

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