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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful context by specifying the exact data returned, confirming read-only semantics, and explaining non-custodial settlement to the withdrawal address. This goes 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 compact and front-loaded, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and a detailed but organized list of return values in the second. Every clause adds substantive information; there is no filler.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to decide whether and how to call the tool. It names all return components, states side-effect-free behavior, and clarifies settlement semantics.

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 input schema has zero parameters and already explains that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. Since 0 parameters carry no semantic burden and the schema description gives full context, the description does not need additional parameter guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('how much I have earned'), then enumerates the exact outputs returned. It is immediately clear what the tool does and what it returns, with no ambiguity or conflation with sibling 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 implies when to use this tool (whenever an agent needs earnings, pending amounts, or payout status) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or call out alternatives. For a zero-parameter utility with no closely related siblings, this is adequate but not fully explicit.

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