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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and side-effect behavior are covered. The description confirms it is a GET retrieval but adds little behavioral context beyond annotations, such as versioning semantics or whether acceptance requires the returned termsVersion. A 3 fits when annotations carry the main behavioral load.

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 usage trigger first and the returned fields second. No filler, nothing repeated from the name.

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 available, the description compensates by naming the concrete return fields (termsVersion, URLs, message templates). Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies a parameterless fetch.

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 (returns/GET) plus the resource (/api/referrals/terms) and enumerates the payload (termsVersion, terms and rules URLs, acceptance message templates). An agent can distinguish this read-only terms fetch from the sibling memeswap_referral_accept mutation without opening either schema.

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 before accepting referrer terms" gives a clear trigger condition tied to the referral acceptance flow. It stops short of naming memeswap_referral_accept explicitly, but the sequencing advice is unambiguous and actionable.

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