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

Despite annotations covering safety, the description adds important non-obvious behavior: payouts are processed manually by the team, sent to the owner email confirmed at signup, earnings unlock 14 days after each payment, and only one request is allowed at a time. These details materially shape how and when an agent should invoke the tool.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by mechanism and constraint. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information with no repetition.

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?

With no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description covers the important operational context: eligibility timing, delivery destination, manual fulfillment, and concurrency limit. It stops short of confirming what the immediate response indicates (e.g., acknowledgment vs. completed payout), which is a minor gap.

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 100% for the single optional api_key parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not exemplary.

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 makes the action clear through 'One request at a time' and the payout/earnings context, but the actual verb+resource ('request a payout') is only fully explicit in the title. It does distinguish itself from siblings by anchoring to list_orders output.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use when list_orders shows earnings available') and names the sibling to consult first, which is strong routing guidance. It lacks an explicit when-not or what to do if a request is already pending, but the 'one request at a time' constraint implies that case.

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