Earnings

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the substantive behavior: authentication requirement, meaning of the role-forbidden failure, and the exact shape of the returned data (balance, per-month estimated/confirmed amounts, adjustments, revenue share %, payouts with date/amount/method). The unit disclosure (USD, micro-dollars via balanceMicros) is real behavioral context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and safety/auth context, then the return shape, then the sibling redirect. It is a single dense run-on with heavy parenthetical enumeration, which costs a little readability but every clause (units, scope, error meaning) 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so concretely, down to units and the balanceMicros field. Combined with the auth and error semantics, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or interpret a failure is missing.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. It does not waste space re-explaining an empty input 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 verb and resource ("Returns the active developer account's earnings") plus explicit scope: account-wide, not per game. It names the sibling gamealia_get_stats and the data that belongs there (plays, ad impressions), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this tool for account finances, use gamealia_get_stats for per-game plays and impressions. It also gives prerequisites ("needs login") and an error-interpretation rule ("a role-forbidden error means the user's role cannot see finances"), which covers the when-not case.

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