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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating 'Free to read' and 'No signup bounty or guaranteed earnings,' which inform the agent about program specifics rather than tool behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the core value proposition (earning USDC), then specify what is readable, and end with a caution. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, content, and important caveats. There is no missing information an agent would need to correctly invoke it.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema already indicates no inputs required. No additional semantic guidance is necessary.

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: it reads eligibility, participation requirements, and payout terms for the Speedbot referral program. It distinguishes itself from siblings like speedbot_referral_join and speedbot_referral_status by emphasizing the read-only nature and the specific content it provides.

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 implies when to use it (to learn about the referral program) and adds a caution ('No signup bounty or guaranteed earnings') that sets expectations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know to use this for informational reading rather than actions like joining.

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