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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose consent requirements and that tiered rewards (10/50/200/1000 SHANIU) roll out automatically in batches. It does not state whether registration is idempotent, whether it submits an on-chain transaction, what happens if a binding already exists, or what it returns — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the sequencing and consent rules; nothing is padded. The only waste is the ambiguous "mode=intent" phrase that points at a nonexistent field.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation mutation tool, the description covers purpose, sequencing, consent and reward behavior. It falls short on return values (binding id? tx hash?), duplicate/existing-binding behavior, and error conditions an agent would need before invoking.

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 only 33%, with just claimTx documented, so the description must compensate — and it does explain claimTx's meaning well (omit for pre-claim intent). But inviter/invitee get no added semantics, and the phantom "mode=intent" reference does not map to any real parameter, which can mislead.

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?

"Register a referral binding" is a specific verb+resource that clearly separates this tool from the sibling stats/prepare tools. It also describes the two modes of the binding, though it refers to claim() rather than the actual sibling name shaniu_prepare_claim.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance: use intent mode before the invitee claims, or bind afterwards with the claim tx hash, plus a consent requirement. However, it references "mode=intent" as if it were a parameter, while the schema has no mode field — the mode is actually selected by omitting claimTx — which weakens the routing instruction.

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