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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: the operation is free, the output is machine-readable, settlement happens on-chain, and the commission is 10%. However, it does not disclose side effects (whether calling this binds a referral relationship), prerequisites, or what 'broadcast block' is for.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The primary deliverable is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the incentive/context ('Free', '10%', 'on-chain') follows efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with a single documented parameter and an output schema present, the description adequately covers what is delivered and why it matters. The main gaps are prerequisites (registration status, wallet chain) and side effects, which are notable but not severe given the tool's simplicity.

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% (the single 'wallet' parameter is already documented as 'Your wallet address'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics such as chain requirements or address format, and its mention of 'on-chain' settlement only weakly reinforces the schema.

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 specific deliverable verb ('Get') tied to a concrete resource ('agent referral code + machine-readable broadcast block'), and clarifies the economic purpose ('Earn 10% of referred spend'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like plaza.register, plaza.earnings, and plaza.catalog, though it never explicitly names or contrasts 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?

The use case is implied rather than stated: an agent wanting a referral code to earn rewards would call this. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be a registered agent), and no naming of alternatives among the many plaza siblings.

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