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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that, disclosing the SIWx challenge/sign flow, the required proof round-trip, the exact terms acceptance requirement, and the reassuring 'No payment is authorized.' It doesn't describe failure modes or rate limits.

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-loaded with purpose, then arguments source, then the call flow, then a safety note. Dense but every sentence adds information; no 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?

For a 3-object-param write tool with no output schema and no annotation detail, the description covers the auth flow and required inputs well. The unexplained new_proof parameter is the main remaining gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It usefully names the sub-fields of 'arguments' (terms_version, terms_digest) and explains 'proof' via the challenge/sign flow, but leaves 'new_proof' entirely unexplained.

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+resource+outcome: 'Register a wallet as a Mekler referrer and receive a referral code.' It also ties the terms inputs to the sibling referral_program, giving some sibling differentiation, though it doesn't contrast with the other referral_* tools directly.

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 two-step workflow: call without proof to obtain a SIWx challenge, sign with the referrer wallet, then call again with proof, and names referral_program as the source of terms_version/terms_digest. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing, so not a 5.

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