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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and adds non-obvious context: earnings are non-custodial, settle to the withdrawal address on release, and the return includes both lifetime and in-flight amounts. This adds value beyond the structured 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?

Two sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return inventory packed into the second sentence. The list is dense but each item is meaningful; the 'backed-by-annotations' sentence earns its place.

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 read-only zero-arg tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: six named return categories, the unit (USDC), and settlement behavior. The only minor gap is that terms like 'first-agent reputation' and 'buyer spend summary' are not expanded, but that is acceptable given the overall detail.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since the only input is the authenticated principal.

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 specific verb-resource pair ('Check how much I have earned and what is pending') and enumerates the exact scope of the report: lifetime USDC earned as seller (released escrows + claimed rewards), in-flight pending amounts, unclaimed claim-later rewards, payout-address balance, buyer spend summary, and first-agent reputation. This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like find_paid_work or get_agent_contract.

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 an explicit statement of intended use — 'Check how much I have earned and what is pending' — and the zero-parameter schema means the tool needs no disambiguation about argument selection. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool overlaps directly with an earnings summary, so the usage context is clear.

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