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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those hints by explaining that earnings 'settle non-custodially to your withdrawal address on release,' and by clarifying exactly what counts as earned versus pending. No contradiction with the annotations 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 only two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and packs the behavioral and settlement notes efficiently into the second sentence. Every clause earns its place, and the enumeration of return categories is structured and readable rather than bloated.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it states what is checked, which amounts are included, how settlement works, and that the operation is read-only. The output schema covers return-value structure, so the description does not need to repeat it.

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 explicitly states the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but none is needed. For a 0-parameter tool, 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 states a clear verb and resource — 'Check how much I have earned and what is pending' — then enumerates the distinct data categories returned. This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable and distinguishable from siblings like find_paid_work or data_session_query, which concern earning opportunities or session data rather than an earnings summary.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the user wants an earnings/pending-status overview. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the tool is a read-only, zero-argument summary endpoint with no close sibling performing the same function, so the omission is minor.

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