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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: earnings settle non-custodially to the withdrawal address on release, the tool is parameterless (owner derived from authenticated principal), and the breakdown includes released escrows plus claimed rewards. No contradiction with 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, well-organized sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists the full return breakdown, and ends with the key behavioral note. Every clause adds information; there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully enumerates the returned data, clarifies auth-derived identity, and notes the non-custodial settlement behavior. Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema requires no explanation. The description adds meaningful context by stating that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal and no arguments are needed, which satisfies the parameterless baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('check'), a clear resource ('earnings'), and enumerates the exact data returned (lifetime USDC, pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout-address balance, buyer spend summary, reputation). This fully distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which target hiring, contracts, and discovery.

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 makes clear the tool reports seller earnings and is read-only, and the parameterless schema implies it is the general earnings-checking tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like check_agent_contract or get_recommended_action, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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