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

With no annotations, the description reveals key behavioral traits: it can add or update, and notes that funds go to the operator on behalf of the user. This is sufficient for a simple mutation tool, though it lacks fine-grain details like idempotency or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence establishes action and condition, the second explains the recipient. It is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers 'when', 'what', and 'who' adequately. It could optionally mention expected return value or confirmation, but it is largely complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description adds no extra detail per parameter beyond what is already in the schema. The overall context helps, but the tool does not elaborate on method choices or details format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 action ('Add or update payout details') and specifies the context ('only needed once you have payable earnings'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a specific financial setup step.

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?

Explicitly links usage to a prerequisite ('check my_earnings first'), providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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