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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' is consistent with those. It adds useful context by enumerating the specific categories of rules returned, which goes beyond the empty schema and 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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Read') and immediately specifies the resource and audience, earning its place entirely.

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 no-parameter, read-only, idempotent getter, the description is complete enough for an agent to know when and why to invoke it. The lack of an output schema is mitigated because the description enumerates the main content areas of the response.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing; the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than inventing parameter details.

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 description uses a concrete verb ('Read') and names a specific resource: wallet attribution, qualification, payout, and active-rate source rules for referral agents. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_job or get_native_config, so an agent can identify what this tool is for without ambiguity.

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?

The description clearly implies the appropriate context: use this tool when the agent needs referral program rules for agents who refer job buyers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the specific scope and the zero-parameter signature make the intended usage obvious.

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