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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description goes beyond these by explaining that earnings 'settle non-custodially to your withdrawal address on release,' adding behavioral context about how funds are handled that annotations do not convey.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is dense but each listed item adds informative value about return contents and settlement behavior. No filler, though the enumeration is somewhat long.

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 a rich output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what is returned, the settlement behavior, and the safety profile. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide to call it and understand the result.

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 description explicitly notes that no arguments are needed, with ownership derived from the authenticated principal (also reflected in the input schema). Per the baseline for 0 parameters, 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Check how much I have earned and what is pending.' It then enumerates the exact components returned (lifetime USDC, in-flight pending, unclaimed rewards, payout-address balance, buyer spend summary, reputation), making it unmistakable what this tool does and how it differs 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 description gives clear context that this is the tool for checking earnings and pending amounts, and explicitly signals it is read-only. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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