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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: the Partner tier requirement, current sign-in status, the server's auth challenge response, and the client's ability to prompt account connection. Annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent, but the description enriches the agent's understanding of the auth flow, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the primary purpose, then the requirement, then the actionable guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. The use of uppercase highlights key conditions without being excessive.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, who it's for, the auth prerequisite, and the expected behavior when unauthenticated. It also includes a safeguard against hallucination. Nothing critical is missing for this simple tool.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the schema is trivially complete. No additional semantics are required or provided.

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 commission totals and payout status for a SkimGuard reseller, which is a specific resource with an implied read operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'my' tools by focusing on earnings/financial data, not locations or devices.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to call it: when the user asks about their own business, reseller, or licensed data. It also explains the auth handling (call anyway; server will challenge) and gives a clear 'do not fabricate' instruction, covering both when and when-not behavior.

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