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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the operation is read-only, earnings settle non-custodially to the withdrawal address on release, and the description itemizes exactly what is and is not included in the result. This is consistent with readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and materially helps an agent predict behavior and outputs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a short first sentence. The second sentence is a dense enumeration that earns its place since there is no output schema to document return values. Slightly run-on, but every clause carries information.

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?

Complete for a zero-parameter read-only query: annotations cover the safety profile, and since there is no output schema, the description properly shoulders the burden of explaining return values, the auth-derived owner, and settlement behavior.

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?

Tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The input schema already states the owner is derived from the authenticated principal; the description adds no parameter detail, but none is 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Check how much I have earned and what is pending' — then enumerates the exact return categories (lifetime USDC, in-flight pending, claim-later rewards, payout balance, buyer spend, reputation). No sibling tool covers earnings, so it is clearly distinguishable from the operational session/funding/hiring tools.

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 first sentence is a clear directive of when to invoke it (to learn earned and pending amounts). It gives clear context but does not name alternatives or explicit exclusions; however, none of the 16 siblings overlap with earnings checking, so the usage context is unambiguous without them.

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