hackerone_get_earnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only history operation but does not explicitly state that it is a retrieval, whether results are paginated, or any authentication requirements. 'Earnings history' hints at non-destructive behavior, but the description does not add meaningful behavioral detail beyond the tool name and the listed fields.

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 very short and front-loaded, stating the core value proposition in a single phrase. No words are wasted, though it could be improved by using an explicit verb and a complete sentence to make the action unmistakable.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information about the return content to allow basic invocation. However, it lacks guidance on pagination behavior and fails to distinguish itself from closely related financial siblings, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among tools.

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 single optional parameter, page_size, is fully documented in the input schema with 'Results per page (default 25)', so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema already provides the necessary context.

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 identifies the resource as the user's own bounty earnings history and names the key returned fields: amounts, currency, dates, and programs. It does not use an explicit verb like 'Retrieve' and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the 'Your' and 'earnings history' framing is specific enough to differentiate it from balance and payout 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar siblings such as hackerone_list_payouts, hackerone_get_balance, or hackerone_program_bounty_table. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or context clues beyond the word 'Your', so an agent must infer the right choice from the tool name alone.

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