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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: two distinct modes (list vs. enroll), the side effect of enrollment ('mint its stable link'), the requirement to disclose potential rewards, and the need for an API key. It doesn't mention reversibility or response format, but covers essential operational traits well.

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 four sentences and immediately front-loads the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: the core listing behavior, the enrollment path, the disclosure requirement, and the API key prerequisite. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how to invoke both modes, preconditions (API key, terms_version), and a legal/ethical requirement (disclosure). It could mention the exact response format, but the return behavior ('lists each agent and its link') is reasonably clear.

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%, but the description adds critical meaning beyond field names: it explains when agent_id is needed, that accept_terms must be true to enroll, and that terms_version must come from this tool's listing. This conditional logic is not fully captured by the schema alone.

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 verb and resource: 'Get your agents' Customer Bounty referral links.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating it lists agents and their links (if enrolled) and also handles enrollment, differentiating it from customer_bounty_referral_status and others.

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?

Provides clear usage instructions: no arguments lists links; pass accept_terms:true with agent_id and terms_version to enroll. It also notes the API key requirement and disclosure obligation. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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