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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds the scoping context ('capability investment pools'), but says nothing about aggregation across pools, registration requirements, or result shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in the other dimensions.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials, and return values need not be explained. However, it omits whether earnings are aggregated across multiple pools and whether the staker must be registered, which an agent would want to know.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, 'Address or DID of the staker'), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that the input is a staker address, adding no format or resolution detail beyond the 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Check earnings from capability investment pools') scoped to a staker address, which an agent can distinguish from siblings like get_operator_earnings or get_pool. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting with those closest alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. With siblings such as get_operator_earnings, claim_pool, and get_pool in the same domain, the agent gets no help deciding which to call; usage is only implied by the verb 'check'.

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