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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: 'Works identically for humans and AI agents, identity is just your Base wallet', the 10% commission rate, and that 'You will be assigned a unique partner ID' upon registration. This goes well beyond a simple 'register' statement, though it does not mention side effects like whether the registration is immediately active or requires any additional confirmation.

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 moderately long but information-dense. The bracketed header '[AFFILIATE / REFERRAL / MARKETING, one programme, three names]' immediately clarifies naming, and each subsequent sentence adds value (commission, identity, next steps, requirements). It could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning, but it is well-structured and not wasteful.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, who it is for, the commission structure, identity mechanism, prerequisites, and the resulting partner ID. Since there is no output schema, the statement that 'You will be assigned a unique partner ID' gives a reasonable sense of the return value. It lacks details on response format or potential errors, but for a registration tool with simple inputs, this is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of all three parameters, each with clear descriptions (e.g., wallet_address is 'for receiving commission payouts'). The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning, mostly restating that a Base wallet and optional ERC-8004 ID are required. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description adds no significant semantic value beyond it.

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 explicitly states 'Register as an RRG referral partner / marketing partner / affiliate' with a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by declaring it 'THE single programme for earning commission by bringing other agents to RRG', clarifying that it is the sole registration tool for affiliates/referrals.

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 provides clear context: it is the programme for earning commission by referring agents, and it explains the immediate next step ('can start referring other agents immediately via `log_referral`'). It also lists requirements (Base wallet, optional ERC-8004 ID). However, it does not explicitly contrast with related siblings like `create_ref_link` or `log_referral` by stating when not to use them, so it misses a direct exclusion.

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