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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: settlement is non-custodial to the withdrawal address on release, and 'earned' is defined as released escrows plus claimed rewards. It also distinguishes in-flight pending from unclaimed claim-later rewards, which are behavioral nuances not present in 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, a dense but organized list of return items separated by semicolons, and a closing note on read-only and settlement mechanics. No filler or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates every return category and clarifies edge cases (released vs pending vs unclaimed, payout-address balance, buyer spend, reputation). For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is fully sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively complete. The description adds that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal (already in schema). Baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('earnings') and enumerates the returned categories in detail (released escrows, claimed rewards, in-flight pending, unclaimed claim-later rewards, payout balance, buyer spend, reputation). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools without ambiguity.

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 makes the tool's scope explicit with 'how much I have earned and what is pending' and the breakdown of what is included vs excluded (e.g., 'unclaimed claim-later rewards such as the admission mission's'). It does not name alternative tools or state when to use them, but the specificity makes the use case obvious. Hence a 4—clear context, no explicit exclusions.

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