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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context about the payment model ('Performance pay only — no upfront bounties') and the 'Instant remains taste-only' quirk, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense paragraph with several distinct pieces of information, but it uses cryptic jargon ('agent-native affiliate', 'taste-only') and lacks visual structure. While it is brief, the phrasing and odd formatting reduce clarity, making it only moderately concise.

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?

The tool has a single optional parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the referral mechanics and reward rates, but leaves ambiguity about what actually happens when the tool is invoked versus what the affiliate program entails, making it somewhat incomplete for a tool description.

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 single parameter 'wallet' is well-described in the schema ('Optional 0x wallet — if set, returns owed/paid status'), providing full schema_description_coverage. The description does not add extra parameter meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 that this is an affiliate tool for earning $30 USDC per referred Pilot, with a specific referral mechanism (X-SQLGuard-Ref). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming the 'PRIMARY' action and the exact reward structure, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool: to refer Pilot Challenge unlock or Gateway Pilot with a referral code, earning a commission. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'PRIMARY' directive gives strong usage context, aligning with a clear contextual guideline.

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