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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers the behavioral profile: it explains the commission structure (10% on platform's share), identity mechanism (Base wallet), what you receive (unique partner ID), and the immediate ability to refer. It also states requirements upfront, making the tool's side effects and post-conditions clear.

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 well-structured with a clarifying header, broken into logical chunks: what the tool does, commission details, what happens upon registration, and requirements. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff, making it dense but easily scannable.

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 registration tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the programme's purpose, earning potential, identity rules, the resulting partner ID, and the next step (log_referral). It also clarifies the requirement of a Base wallet, leaving little ambiguity for an agent deciding to call this tool.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantics beyond the schema: it repeats the wallet purpose and mentions the optional ERC-8004 agent ID, but the schema already covers these. No additional parameter-specific meaning is provided.

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 function: 'Register as an RRG referral partner / marketing partner / affiliate.' It uses a specific verb ('register') and resource, and explicitly distinguishes this as 'THE single programme' for earning commission, differentiating it from siblings like create_ref_link or get_marketing_handbook.

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 when-to-use guidance, positioning this as the mandatory entry point for anyone earning commission by referring agents, and notes that after registration you can 'start referring other agents immediately via `log_referral`.' It also clarifies that the same programme applies to humans and AI agents, removing ambiguity.

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