Earnings per service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds the output shape ('one record per service' plus the three reported fields), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens for services with no earnings — all plausible given an output schema handles field-level return detail.

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 sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads the return shape, the second front-loads the decision it supports. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 parameters, an output schema covering return fields, and annotations covering safety, the remaining burden on the description is scope and purpose — both stated. An agent can call this correctly with no further information.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to misunderstand; the schema is a closed empty object with additionalProperties=false. Baseline for a 0-param tool applies, and the description correctly implies no filtering inputs are needed.

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 names the resource and its granularity precisely: 'One record per service' with balance, earnings, and cashout-minimum status. That granularity implicitly separates it from the daily/history/summary siblings, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Use it to answer which services earn most and what can be cashed out' gives a concrete question the tool answers, which is solid usage context. It stops short of excluding alternatives — an agent is never told when to prefer get_earnings_summary or get_earnings_daily instead.

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