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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the 'calling funder identity' scoping cue, and says nothing about what accrual periods, totals, or pagination the read returns.

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?

A single sentence with no filler and the scope qualifier front-loaded at the end of the clause. It is efficient, though so terse that it omits anything beyond the bare 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?

For a simple read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. With no output schema and no explanation of the return shape (currency, period, recovery vs accrual breakdown), an agent knows what to call but not what it will receive.

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 0% across two auth parameters, and the description supplies no key semantics at all — it never mentions api_key or agent_key. The only guidance is that the caller is identified as a 'funder', which hints at identity but does not explain the exactly-one-of rule that the schema's own top-level description carries.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') plus the resource ('royalty recovery and credit accruals') and scopes it to the 'calling funder identity', which separates it from agent-scoped siblings like agent_earnings_get and contract_recovery. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the funder-vs-agent scope distinction is legible from the text alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus related tools such as contract_recovery, agent_earnings_get, or balance_get, and no preconditions given. The agent must infer usage purely from the noun phrase 'royalties'.

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