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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond these annotations, such as the non-custodial settlement to the withdrawal address and the distinction between released escrows, claimed rewards, and claim-later rewards. No contradiction exists.

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 a plain-language purpose and then expands into concrete return categories. Both sentences earn their place, with no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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?

For a parameterless read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, confirms read-only behavior, clarifies settlement mechanics, and needs no additional caveats or prerequisites to be safely invoked.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the input contract. The description reinforces that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal and that this is an account-wide query, which is consistent and adds mild context without being necessary.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only earnings check, stating the resource (earnings as seller) and the specific verb (check). It enumerates exactly what is returned, including lifetime USDC, pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout balance, buyer spend, and reputation, which distinguishes it from any sibling tool without requiring schema inspection.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: whenever the agent needs to know how much the user has earned or what is pending. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is so specific and the read-only nature so clear that usage intent is unambiguous.

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