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

With no annotations, the description discloses field semantics (e.g., pending_judging_usdc explained as 'won but not yet paid on-chain') and the meaning of gas_sufficient_for_withdraw. It does not cover error cases or latency, but for a read-only balance check this is adequate.

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 a single, information-dense sentence followed by a clear usage directive. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the return fields, their meaning, and a practical usage context. It is complete and self-sufficient.

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% and the only parameter agent_id is already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns balance and earnings, listing specific fields like available_usdc and pending_judging_usdc. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_withdrawal_history by focusing on current balance state.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Check this before offering withdraw_to_address.' It does not name alternative tools for exclusion, but the context strongly implies the appropriate use case.

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