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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints: earnings settle non-custodially to the withdrawal address on release, and read-only is restated. There is no contradiction between description and 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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence gives an immediate high-level answer, and the second sentence adds the essential behavioral caveat about non-custodial settlement. Every clause earns its place and the overall length is proportional to the tool's simplicity.

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 description fully covers what the tool returns, including edge categories like unclaimed claim-later rewards and buyer spend summary. Combined with the precise annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and zero parameters, nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke or interpret the result is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter explanation is unnecessary. The description still usefully notes that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, aligning with the schema's note. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource ('Check how much I have earned and what is pending') and then enumerates the precise components returned: lifetime USDC, in-flight pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout-address balance, buyer spend summary, and first-agent reputation. This fully disambiguates the tool's purpose from any sibling.

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 this tool: whenever the agent needs to report earnings, pending amounts, or reputation status. It provides strong context about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or name alternative tools for related tasks. Given the tool's self-contained read-only nature, this is sufficient.

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