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

The description clearly states the tool is read-only, what actions it exposes, and that it will not collect bank, card, tax, or government ID information. It also discloses accepted authentication modes and redirects sensitive changes to the dashboard, adding context beyond the provided annotations.

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 somewhat dense, but every clause adds useful information: authentication behavior, allowed actions, returned data, read-only boundaries, and privacy limitations. There is no filler or redundancy; it front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a complete picture of expectations, behaviors, and boundaries. It tells the agent exactly what each action returns and what the tool will not do, which is sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Although the schema already describes both parameters well, the description enriches the token parameter by explaining when an existing Bearer web session is acceptable and that the user should not be asked for an sk_ token in that case. It also reinforces action semantics with concrete payout data descriptions.

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 says 'View your payout status' and then defines the two supported actions (settings and history) with specific data returned. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like account, subscriptions, and reporting by tying it to payout-specific information.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool and when not to: payout method changes and tax forms should be handled on the secure web dashboard. It also gives important auth behavior guidance, telling the agent not to ask the user for an sk_ token when a working web session already exists.

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