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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it details exactly what is returned, clarifies that earnings settle non-custodially to the withdrawal address on release, and identifies the perspective (seller, buyer, first-agent reputation). This goes well beyond the annotations and explains real behavioral semantics.

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 and front-loads the core purpose before diving into detail. The enumeration of return categories is long but earns its place by making the tool's coverage explicit. The second sentence adds a necessary behavioral note about non-custodial settlement. Minor redundancy with the readOnly annotation is acceptable.

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?

Given zero parameters, complete annotation coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what the tool does, what financial categories are covered, that it is read-only, and how settlement works. There are no missing behavioral or usage gaps that would prevent correct selection or 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema already states that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With 0 params the baseline is 4, and the description reinforces this by framing the tool around 'I' and 'my' earnings without inventing additional inputs.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check how much I have earned and what is pending.' It then enumerates the exact categories returned — lifetime USDC, in-flight pending, unclaimed rewards, payout balance, buyer spend, and reputation — which fully disambiguates it from every sibling tool. No other sibling covers earnings, so the purpose is 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 provides a clear usage context: checking earned and pending amounts, with concrete inclusions like released escrows, claimed rewards, and unclaimed claim-later rewards. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool is so distinct within the sibling set that no alternative routing is necessary.

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