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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the payout behavior: manual operator payments, team wallet source, txHash recording via dashboard, the threshold for payout, and the free rate-limited nature. This is highly transparent and exceeds what annotations would typically provide.

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 concise yet information-dense, with each sentence providing necessary context: purpose, payment mechanics, threshold, status check, and cost. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a clear pricing block. 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 the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the full workflow: registration, manual payout process, threshold, and status checking. It also addresses potential misconceptions about automated ETH transfers. This is complete for a registration tool with simple parameters.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (address and agentId). The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, but it does contextually reinforce the address's purpose by mentioning 'Register an EVM address.' This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Register an EVM address for manual referral commission payouts.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing the manual payout mechanism and pointing to the status tool for checking payout status.

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?

The description provides explicit context on when to use the tool: to register an address for manual referral payouts. It clarifies that the gateway never sends ETH, explains the manual operator process, the 0.05 ETH threshold, and directs users to flipr_referral_payout_status for checking status. This effectively guides the user through the workflow.

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