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

annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are live, income is not guaranteed, and no funds are transferred. These caveats go beyond the structured annotations and help set correct expectations.

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 primary action, the live data type, and the key caveats are all front-loaded and each phrase contributes meaningful 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 zero-parameter, read-only check, the description effectively communicates what the tool returns and warns about important limitations. It does not specify the exact response shape or how availability is represented, but the simplicity of the operation and the absence of parameters make this adequate.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter documentation gap for the description to fill. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description is not required to explain parameter behavior that does not exist.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('live Human Earn and Agent Earn availability'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool exposes. The 'live' qualifier helps, but there is no explicit contrast with sibling tools like check_earnings or find_paid_opportunities, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of its siblings, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusion conditions. The title implies 'checking ways to earn now,' but the description does not state the intended context, prerequisites, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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