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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes beyond them by explaining that earnings settle non-custodially to the withdrawal address on release, and by nuancing pending vs unclaimed vs released. No behavioral surprises are hidden.

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: the first states the user intent and the second packs the output categories and settlement behavior without repetition. Every clause 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 no-argument read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is returned, the categories included, pending/unclaimed nuance, and the non-custodial 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema description already states that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, so the description has no parameter burden. This is the correct baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 and resource ('Check how much I have earned and what is pending') and then enumerates a detailed output breakdown (lifetime USDC as seller, in-flight pending, claim-later rewards, payout-address balance, buyer spend, reputation). This scope is unique among the sibling tools, so an agent can distinguish it from data_session_query, get_agent_contract, and find_paid_work.

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?

It makes the trigger condition clear: use when the user wants to know earned and pending amounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but no other sibling covers earnings, so the exclusion burden is low.

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