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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses the challenge/sign/retry auth flow, which wallet must sign, and the notable constraint 'No payment is authorized.' It omits reversibility, permission requirements, and failure 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the parameter mapping and the auth flow in order of need. Dense but every sentence carries information; the single long sentence for the flow is slightly run-on.

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 two-phase authenticated mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and the challenge-sign-retry sequence. It does not describe what the challenge or final response contains or what happens to the old wallet's state after rotation.

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% with three undocumented nested-object parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does, mapping arguments to old_wallet/new_wallet and identifying proof as the old wallet's proof and new_proof as the new wallet's. Types, formats, and the nesting structure inside arguments remain unspecified.

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 precise verb and resource — moving a referral registration to a new wallet while preserving history — which is clearly distinct from siblings like referral_register (new registration) and rotate_trial (trial rotation). An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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 usage flow: call without proof to obtain a SIWx challenge, sign with the referrer wallet, then call again with proof. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over referral_register or other siblings, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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