get_my_earnings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it doesn't say whether an expert account is required, what time window the earnings cover, what currency/units are returned, or how the optional userId changes the result.

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 six-word sentence that is front-loaded and wastes nothing. It is brief rather than bloated, though the brevity shades into under-specification.

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 only one loosely documented parameter, the description should do more work: it never defines 'Fodda', never states the access requirement, and never describes what the returned earnings contain or over what period. An agent can guess the gist but cannot confidently call or interpret the result.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and one optional parameter, the schema carries the parameter burden, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the optional userId and its 'my'/'the expert's' framing sits in slight tension with a parameter that lets you look up someone else.

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?

It gives a verb ("Check") and a resource ("the expert's Fodda earnings"), so the general intent is legible. But "Fodda earnings" is platform jargon that is never explained, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like get_earnings_intelligence, get_company_earnings, or get_earnings_divergence.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must be an onboarded expert), and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent is left to infer that this is for the caller's own earnings purely from the tool name.

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