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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description builds on that by adding meaningful behavioral context: it is read-only, and earnings settle non-custodially to the withdrawal address on release. This adds transparency beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and the second lists the return categories and an important behavioral caveat. Every phrase adds value, and the structure front-loads the core intent.

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?

The tool has no parameters and a rich output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail, yet it still lists the main output categories and notes the non-custodial settlement behavior. This is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and understand its read-only financial nature.

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 states that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, and the tool description adds relevant context by framing the query around the seller's earnings and payout address. No parameter details are needed beyond what is already provided.

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 states the verb and resource: 'Check how much I have earned and what is pending.' It further specifies the exact scope of the tool by enumerating the returned categories (lifetime USDC, pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout balance, buyer spend summary, reputation), which distinguishes it from earnings-related alternatives and makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the user wants an earnings overview, pending amounts, or payout status. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can confidently select it for financial/earnings queries.

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