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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant domain context: the 7-day hold rule that determines what counts as releasable, and the explicit clarification that it has no side effect on payouts. Return shape (currency, amount breakdown) is not described, but with a zero-param read tool this is a minor gap.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the defining business rule (7-day hold) front-loaded before the negative clarification. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what the value represents and what it does not do. The only omission is a hint at what the response contains (e.g., amount and currency), which the absence of an output schema makes slightly more relevant.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly does not waste space restating an empty schema.

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?

States a specific resource (expert earnings past the 7-day hold, available to withdraw) with a clear read verb implied by the name. It explicitly distinguishes itself from request_payout, though it does not differentiate from close siblings like get_wallet_balance or get_earnings_summary, leaving some overlap for the agent to resolve.

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 sentence 'This does not request a payout' provides an explicit when-not, which is useful routing guidance toward request_payout. However, there is no positive statement of when to call this instead of get_wallet_balance or get_earnings_summary, so the choice among three balance-like reads is left to inference.

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