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

Annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description goes well beyond them by disclosing the payout mechanics: payableMicro triggers at thresholdMicro, onHold covers the 7-day dispute window, disputedMicro awaits a decision, and nextPayout explains blockers. That is substantive behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured 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?

A single dense sentence front-loads purpose and unit-of-measure before the semicolon-delimited field explanations. Every clause carries information, though the nested parentheses make it denser than ideal for scanning.

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 no parameters, the description carries the full explanatory burden and discharges it: it documents the auth requirement, the currency unit, and the semantics of every returned value including why a payout would not proceed. An agent has everything needed to interpret the response.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates for the absent output schema by defining the meaning and unit of each returned field (payableMicro, thresholdMicro, neededMicro, onHold, disputedMicro, nextPayout, micro-USDC), which is useful but sits outside this dimension's parameter focus.

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 opens with a specific resource and scope: 'Your operator's USDC earnings from sales.' That verb-less but precise scoping distinguishes it cleanly from sibling money tools like my_points, my_quota, and leaderboard, and an agent can identify the tool without opening anything else.

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?

It states operational context explicitly, 'requires auth, free,' which tells the agent this is an authenticated but non-metered read. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when *not* to use it, so guidance is clear but not routing-complete.

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