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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it does well: it explains the commission payment timeline ('paid in USDC to your wallet when the sale settles'), the returned artifacts (short link and ref_code), and explicitly states 'no approval needed'. It does not mention rate limits or edge cases, but for a simple creation tool, this is transparent enough.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence is informative. It avoids redundancy and fluff, containing only necessary details about the tool's function, output, and usage.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything needed: what the tool creates, how the commission works, the format of the returned link, and how to use the ref_code. It is complete and self-contained.

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% with descriptions already explaining both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics by elaborating on `partner_wallet` ('Your Base wallet; commission is paid here') and how the output `ref_code` links to other tools, which goes beyond 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 opens with a specific action: 'Create a product referral link' for affiliate commission, which clearly states the tool's function and sets it apart from sibling purchase/quest tools. It elaborates on the purpose: earning commission via USDC, making the intent unmistakable.

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?

It provides clear use-case context: 'Open to any wallet, no approval needed' removes prerequisites, and 'Share the link, or pass ref_code to buy_product / confirm_purchase' tells how to apply the output. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool is the only likely method for creating referral links; still, it gives enough guidance for when to use it.

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