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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that each message carries a different timestamp encoding (ISO for the terms acceptance message, epoch ms for the referral message). It omits any auth/prerequisite detail, but that is a minor gap given the safety profile is covered.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates the outputs. Every clause earns its place, though packing two timestamp formats into one sentence is slightly heavy.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the returned artifacts — two messages, their formats, and which tool consumes each — which is enough for an agent to chain the calls. Missing only prerequisite/auth context for a read-only helper.

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%, so wallet and termsVersion are already documented, including the default for termsVersion. The description adds no additional meaning about either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: retrieving the two messages a referrer signs, with fresh timestamps. It even maps each returned message to its consuming sibling (memeswap_referral_accept vs memeswap_referral_code/stats), so the agent can tell it apart from a generic signer.

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?

Explicitly framed with 'Use to get...' and names the downstream tools that consume each message, giving clear context for when this helper is needed before those calls. No explicit when-not or exclusions, 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.