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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by stating the non-custodial settlement behavior and that earnings release to the withdrawal address. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's operational semantics without contradicting 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 dense sentence that efficiently enumerates the return contents and adds the read-only/non-custodial caveat. No filler words, and all information is relevant to invocation and expectation-setting.

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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool returns (the full list), its security posture (read-only, non-custodial), and implicit invocation trigger. Nothing material is missing.

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 states the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description confirms no arguments are needed by focusing entirely on the output scope. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters, the description need not add further parameter detail; baseline 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('earnings'), then enumerates the exact components returned (lifetime USDC earned, pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout-address balance, buyer spend summary, first-agent reputation). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_paid_work or get_recommended_action, which address different workflows.

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 implies usage context: an agent should call this when the user asks about earned amounts, pending payouts, or earnings status. It provides a clear domain for use, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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