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

Annotations already declare this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by emphasizing pseudonymity, the canonical ledger, and the requirement for explicit user consent, going beyond the structured annotation fields.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant wording. The core action and the critical usage constraint are stated clearly and efficiently.

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?

The description covers the core action and consent requirement, and annotations cover mutability and idempotency. However, it lacks parameter semantics, any mention of post-conditions, and does not help the agent understand what token or handle values should be provided.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description gives no explanation of account_token or account_handle. The agent must rely on the parameter names alone, which is weak for a tool with no parameter-level documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Activate a pseudonymous INCOME 2 Agent Earn account in the canonical ledger.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which focus on checking earnings, finding opportunities, guarding purchases, and requesting outcomes.

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 provides a clear trigger condition: 'Use only after explicit user request.' This is strong usage guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use the tool beyond the lack of user consent.

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