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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that certain parameters unlock private earnings data versus public counts, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence and front-loads the main purpose, but the parenthetical about the referral message signature is awkwardly placed after ts, and the phrase 'the referrer own earnings rows' is grammatically unclear.

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 read-only stats tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the two modes and required credentials. However, it leaves ts semantics and the exact shape or availability of returned counts and earnings rows underspecified.

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 50%, with wallet and signature described in the schema. The description adds that wallet, signature, and ts together are needed for earnings rows, but it does not clarify the meaning or format of ts, and code is only implicitly defined as a referral code.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read counts for a referral code, and names the underlying API endpoint. It also distinguishes public counts from authenticated earnings rows, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling referral tools like memeswap_referral_code or memeswap_referral_accept.

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 clearly explains the two usage modes: public counts require only the referral code, while referrer-specific earnings rows require wallet, signature, and ts. It does not name alternative tools or specify when not to use this one, but the context is clear.

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