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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the reward structure and prerequisite, but does not mention side effects (e.g., is the referral record irreversible?), whether duplicate referrals are allowed, or any rate limits. This is useful but not exhaustive.

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 compact and front-loaded with a category tag. Three sentences cover the action, reward, and prerequisite without redundancy. Every sentence 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 logging tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it does, the prerequisite, and the reward. It lacks details on what happens after logging or potential errors, but given the simplicity, it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the purpose of parameters (e.g., 'your_wallet' as marketing agent wallet) but largely mirrors the schema. It does not introduce meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 clearly states the action ('Log a referral, register an agent or human'), the resource (RRG), and the reward mechanism (10% of platform's share). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_ref_link by focusing on logging an actual referral rather than generating a link.

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 an explicit prerequisite: 'You must be a registered partner (use join_marketing_program first).' This indicates when to use the tool. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context of logging a referral is clear enough.

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