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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces those by stating 'Read-only'. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: earnings settle non-custodially to the withdrawal address on release, and it distinguishes released/claimed vs in-flight/unclaimed states.

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 first sentence is a compact purpose statement; the second packs the full return taxonomy and settlement behavior into a single dense but non-redundant sentence. Every clause adds information an agent would need to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, the settlement mechanism, and its read-only nature. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema already documents 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal,' so the description carries no parameter burden. Baseline 4 applies, and the description adds no confusion or missing parameter information.

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 states a specific verb and object ('Check how much I have earned and what is pending') and enumerates the exact return categories: released escrows, claimed rewards, in-flight pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout-address balance, buyer spend summary, and first-agent reputation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which overlaps with an earnings-check purpose.

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 opening phrase gives a clear trigger for when to call it: when the user wants to know earned vs pending amounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but with no close sibling tool for earnings checks, the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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