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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description usefully reinforces the non-idempotent nature ('once per wallet') and notes the return payload, but says nothing about required authorization or what happens on a duplicate acceptance.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, the frequency constraint and the endpoint; every clause 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 4-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent and return shape but omits auth requirements, duplicate-call behavior, and the meaning of 'termsVersion'. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 75%, with 'termsVersion' undocumented in the schema, yet the description adds no parameter guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does most of the work, and the description does not compensate for the one gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('record the referrer terms acceptance') and even names the HTTP endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like memeswap_referral_terms or memeswap_referral_stats, though it never names the closely related memeswap_referral_accept_message sibling.

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?

'Use once per wallet' is a real usage constraint that informs the agent about call frequency, but no alternatives or prerequisites are named. Nothing tells the agent to call memeswap_referral_accept_message first to obtain the signature, which is implied by the required 'signature' parameter.

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