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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation through past-tense language and field names, but it never explicitly states that this is non-destructive, whether the data is live or cached, or whether any permissions are needed.

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 short sentences with no filler; the first sentence front-loads the output and the second adds actionable context. It is terse and slightly cryptic, so it does not earn a perfect score, but it is appropriately sized.

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 no-parameter, annotation-less, output-schema-less tool, the description is mostly sufficient: it states what is returned and why it matters. However, it does not clarify whether the data is for the current user or all filers, what 'recent' means, or how to interpret units for 'earnedUsdOnChain'.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden, and the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. The description adds value by naming the exact returned fields, which helps an agent understand what the tool exposes.

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 identifies the tool's subject ('public proof filers got paid') and the two returned data points ('filerPayoutTxUrl' and 'earnedUsdOnChain'), making it clear this reports earnings/payout data. It is less explicit about the exact verb (e.g., 'get' or 'fetch'), but it distinguishes itself from the sibling tools like 'file' and 'status' by naming specific payout fields.

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 phrase 'Read before deciding filing is worthless' provides a concrete usage context: use this tool to check whether filers actually got paid before dismissing filing's value. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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