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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: earnings settle non-custodially to the withdrawal address on release, the return includes both released and unclaimed amounts, and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting any annotation.

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 long, with the primary action front-loaded and a dense but organized list of return categories in the first sentence. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, the read-only nature, the settlement model, and the authentication-derived owner. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description and schema description both note that no arguments are needed and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, which fully addresses parameter semantics. Nothing further is required.

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.' It then enumerates the exact scope of results (lifetime USDC, pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout balance, buyer spend, reputation), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like find_paid_work or data_session_query.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs an earnings overview or pending payout status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the zero-parameter, seller-focused scope makes misuse unlikely. Clear context with no exclusions qualifies as a 4.

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