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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond this: the read is non-custodial, earnings settle to the withdrawal address on release, and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal via the schema. This gives the agent useful operational expectations.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check how much I have earned and what is pending') and then enumerates the distinct return categories. Every clause adds information, and the read-only/non-custodial note is a valuable closing detail rather than filler.

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 the empty input schema, rich annotations, output schema presence, and zero parameters, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It explains scope, return contents, and behavioral settlement semantics, leaving no critical gap for this simple read-only 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, and the schema description indicates the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With no parameters to document, the description needs to do no extra work here, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource — checking earnings — and breaks down exactly what is returned: lifetime USDC, pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout balance, buyer spend summary, and reputation. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like find_paid_work or data_session_query by focusing on earnings status rather than work discovery or session data.

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?

The description provides clear context: use this when you want to know earned and pending amounts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, but the seller-earnings scope makes the intended use evident against the sibling list.

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