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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return values (transaction calldata and referral code) and the reward mechanism, but does not explicitly state that it only builds calldata and does not submit a transaction, nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output, incentive. No fluff.

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 tool with three simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and the reward context. It lacks explicit note on transaction execution, but the mention of 'returns calldata' implicitly indicates a build-only operation.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the description need not elaborate. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already handles that.

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 uses a specific verb 'Register' and identifies the resource ('a wallet as a MegaChad referring agent'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like register_early_access. It also states the output (calldata and referral code).

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to register as a referral agent) but does not provide explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling register_early_access is not referenced, so no comparison is offered.

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