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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations by explaining that earnings settle non-custodially to the withdrawal address on release. It also specifies the full set of return components, which is essential given there is no output schema. There is no contradiction with the 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then itemizes the return data, and ends with a relevant behavioral note. Every clause adds value with no redundancy or 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 and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the agent will receive. It enumerates eight distinct pieces of information, covers the safety profile, and describes the settlement behavior, making the tool fully specified for an agent to invoke and interpret correctly.

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, so the baseline is 4. The schema description already states the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, and the tool description reinforces the 'as seller' context. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 clear imperative 'Check how much I have earned and what is pending,' then enumerates the exact components returned: lifetime USDC, in-flight pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout balance, buyer spend summary, and reputation. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function. No sibling tool appears to overlap with earnings checks, so differentiation is inherent.

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 establishes a clear context for use (checking earnings and pending amounts) and is similarly the only earnings-related tool among siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Since no competing tool exists, the lack of exclusion guidance is minor.

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