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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the returned link embeds a referral code when one exists, which is a conditional output property not visible in 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and ending with the conditional referral qualifier. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description never states what shape the response takes (a bare URL string vs. a link object) or what happens when no referral exists or the venue is unsupported.

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 100% and the venue parameter already documents its source ('Venue id from list_venues, e.g. hyperliquid'). The description adds no further meaning about valid venues, failure on unknown venues, or fallback behavior, so the baseline 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 concrete resource and outcome: a link to open an account on a perp DEX, with the referral applied conditionally. The verb is implicit (returns/generates a link) rather than explicit, and the description never contrasts itself with siblings like list_venues or best_venue, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 only implied – an agent can infer it should call this when a user wants to open a venue account – but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that venue ids come from list_venues, which only appears in the schema), and no alternative tools named.

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