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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are per-chain and describes the payout mechanism, which is genuine extra context, but it omits whether an address with no referrals returns empty, and does not address any auth or rate-limit behavior.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its chain scope, then the earning mechanism. Every sentence carries information; the only minor waste is the bare 'Free.' lead-in.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers scope (per chain), the earning rule, and payout — enough for a single-parameter read tool. It could be strengthened with a note on what an empty result means.

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?

Only one parameter (address), with 100% schema description coverage and a regex pattern documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'for an address' merely echoes the schema, adding no format or semantic detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource — unclaimed Liquid Bridge referral earnings — and scopes it to an address across chains, plus the payout model. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bridge_quote or bridge_status, though the opening 'Free.' fragment and slightly clipped phrasing ('and how they are paid out') make the purpose marginally less crisp than it could be.

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 explains how to earn referral credit (add ref=<your address> to bridge calls, 20% of Liquid's fee), which gives useful context, but it never says when an agent should call this tool versus the other bridge_* tools, nor any preconditions for querying earnings.

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