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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that commissions are paid in USDC to the wallet, that no approval is needed, and what the tool returns. It also explains how the ref_code is used for attribution, which is important behavioral context beyond just 'create link'.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then explains the value proposition and usage. It's concise without being under-specified, and every sentence adds relevant detail.

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 annotations or output schema, the description provides a clear picture of the tool's behavior, return value, and integration with other tools. It covers eligibility, payment, and attribution. Minor missing details like idempotency or limits, but for a simple creation tool it is quite complete.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions that are already informative (token_id as 'Token ID of the product you want to promote' and partner_wallet as 'Your Base wallet; commission is paid here'). The tool description doesn't add significant extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does clarify that the wallet receives commission, which is already in schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a product referral link' with a specific verb and resource, and explains the commission mechanism. It distinguishes itself from siblings like log_referral by focusing on product referral links and mentioning how ref_code integrates with buy_product/confirm_purchase.

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 says 'Open to any wallet, no approval needed' and instructs to 'Share the link, or pass ref_code to buy_product / confirm_purchase'. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives beyond these related tools.

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