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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the reward economics: 20% of the platform fee (2% of price), for 12 months from registration, credited to the wallet when each task is paid — context an agent can't get from the schema or annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the agent gets back before explaining the terms. The second sentence is long but every clause (attribution, 12-month window, rate, crediting trigger) carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must at least indicate the return content, and 'code, share link and totals' does so adequately, while the terms section explains how earnings accrue. Minor gap: 'totals' is not broken down (earned/pending/referred agents), leaving return shape partly unspecified.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter explanation is needed, and the description correctly implies the tool is scoped to the caller's own referral data with no filtering options.

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 first sentence names the resource precisely (referral code, share link, totals) so an agent knows exactly what comes back, and the second explains the referral mechanics. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_balance or get_me, but the resource description is specific enough to separate it from them.

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?

Usage is implied (this is how you retrieve your own referral code/link before sharing it), and the description helpfully names register_agent and register_and_fund as the tools that make use of the code. However, it never states when to call this versus, say, get_me or get_balance, nor any prerequisites.

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