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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false. The description goes further, disclosing the required signing handshake with the referrer wallet, the distinction between published notices and private account events, and the notable constraint that no payment is authorized. It does not cover pagination behavior or what the challenge expires around.

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-loads the verb and resources, then packs parameter contents and the auth flow into two dense sentences with no filler. The closing payment disclaimer is short and earns its place by pre-empting confusion with the proof/sign flow, though the sentence reads slightly clipped.

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?

For a three-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema and a non-obvious two-call auth handshake, the description covers the flow and the arguments sub-object but omits any explanation of new_proof and gives only a one-line sketch of return contents. Adequate to attempt a call, not complete enough to do it confidently in one pass.

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% and the three top-level parameters (proof, arguments, new_proof) are nested objects with no documentation. The description exposes the internals of arguments (optional cursor, limit 1-50, private_cursor) and implies what proof is via the flow, but says nothing at all about new_proof, leaving a documented gap.

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 two concrete resources: published program notices plus the referrer's private account events. That is well beyond a restatement of the name, and it separates it in spirit from sibling reads like referral_status or referral_receipts, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit operational procedure: call without proof to obtain a SIWx challenge, sign it with the referrer wallet, then call again with proof. That is clear context for invoking it, but there is no when-to-choose guidance relative to the many other referral_* siblings.

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