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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which signals that issuing a code is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful context by saying it can issue a code and by naming returned metrics, but it omits side effects, permissions, or prerequisites for issuing.

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 tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists return values. No sentence is wasted.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully lists the returned data. However, for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, it leaves important gaps around agent_key semantics, when issue_code should be set, and any issuing side effects.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It hints at agent_key via 'this agent's' and at issue_code via 'issue,' but it never names either parameter or clarifies their meaning or requirements.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Read or issue this agent's referral code' and names the returned data: activations, credit balance, and fee-share accruals. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby tools such as balance_get or agent_earnings_get.

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 phrase 'Read or issue' implies two modes, but the description does not explicitly state when to use issue_code versus a read-only status call, nor does it name alternatives. Usage is inferable but not clearly guided.

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