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

Annotations only declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation; the description adds real business behavior beyond that: 30% commission, recorded on completed payment, paid out after review, no cost, and that only verified payments count. It does not disclose what happens on re-registration (idempotency) or what the enrollment response contains, so it falls short of full transparency.

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 the action and the reward, then terms. Minor redundancy: "No cost" and "Commissions are paid only for completed, verified payments" largely restate "recorded when payment is completed and paid out after review," costing one sentence of value.

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 2-parameter enrollment tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, incentive structure, payout conditions, and cost — enough to decide and call. Missing only enrollment edge cases (duplicate signup, eligibility failure), which an agent might reasonably need.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both fields (kontak, siapa_kamu) are already documented. The description adds only marginal meaning — "You or your owner earn 30%" hints that siapa_kamu can be an agent or owner name — and never clarifies accepted payout formats, which the schema already covers.

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 and outcome: "Become an OCKLU affiliate: get a referral code." The deliverable (a ref code usable in buy links) makes the tool instantly distinguishable from siblings like pasang_jualan or cara_beli, none of which concern affiliate enrollment.

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 by the framing — call this to enroll as an affiliate — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. existing account, payout eligibility), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer the trigger condition from the title and first clause.

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