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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond that by noting earnings settle non-custodially to the withdrawal address on release and by confirming the read-only nature. It does not contradict the 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact enumeration of return categories, then a brief behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does so thoroughly by listing all major result categories. It also conveys the non-custodial settlement behavior. For a zero-argument read-only tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema description already explains that no arguments are needed and that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The tool description adds nothing further about parameters, nor does it need to.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('earnings'), then precisely enumerates what is included: lifetime USDC, pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout-address balance, buyer spend summary, and first-agent reputation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity about its scope.

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 clearly implies when to use it — when the user wants an earnings overview — but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. With zero parameters and no obvious overlapping sibling, this is a minor gap rather than a misleading one.

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