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

Annotations are empty. The description implies a read-only operation via 'Returns' and documents the provenance of the authentication parameters (api_key, token, wallet_fk), but it omits rate limits, permission requirements, error behavior, and whether the referral code is static or dynamic.

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 first sentence is duplicated verbatim, which is unnecessary repetition. The parameter annotations are useful but the overall description is not front-loaded efficiently and wastes space on the redundant line.

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 simple read operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the required inputs but only says '@return: a json object'. It does not describe the response structure or any error conditions, leaving a gap that the missing output schema would otherwise fill.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It successfully defines all three parameters, including where token and wallet_fk come from ('provided by /access/login') and what api_key represents.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns this wallet's referral code.' This clearly identifies the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools or mention when it should be used over alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it returns, with no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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