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 valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: earnings 'settle non-custodially to your withdrawal address on release,' clarifying how funds move and that the tool does not cause settlement itself.

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 front-loaded with the core question ('Check how much I have earned and what is pending') and then packs the remaining useful details into a compact itemized list. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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-argument, read-only tool with a safe annotation profile and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and its side-effect-free nature. The note about non-custodial settlement closes the remaining contextual gap about where and when earnings become available.

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, so the baseline is 4. The input schema already explains that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, and the description reinforces the seller-centric scope. There is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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 clear, specific verb+resource: 'Check how much I have earned and what is pending.' It then enumerates the exact returned categories (lifetime USDC, in-flight pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout-address balance, buyer spend summary, first-agent reputation), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools.

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 establishes context: this is the tool to use when checking seller earnings, pending amounts, and related balance/reputation information. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but its scope is specific enough that no exclusions or alternative routing are strictly necessary.

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