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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds behavioral context: 'Read-only' and 'earnings settle non-custodially to your withdrawal address.' This clarifies the non-custodial nature, going slightly beyond the default annotation information.

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 fairly concise while covering a comprehensive list of outputs. It packs multiple data points into a single sentence without unnecessary verbosity, maintaining good structure.

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?

Given the tool has no input parameters, the description adequately conveys all output aspects: lifetime earnings, pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout balance, buyer spend, and reputation. It also notes the read-only and non-custodial nature, making it complete for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description references that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal (as noted in the schema), but since no parameters exist, no additional semantic meaning is required or provided.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Check how much I have earned and what is pending.' It enumerates specific outputs like lifetime USDC, in-flight pending, and unclaimed rewards, distinguishing it from sibling tools such as 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for earnings queries but lacks explicit contrast or conditions for choosing it over related tools, such as get_agent_contract.

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