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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the pay model ('Performance pay only', 'no upfront bounties') and the X-SQLGuard-Ref header requirement, but the phrase 'Instant remains taste-only' is cryptic and unexplained, reducing transparency.

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 compact at four short sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes something (affiliate role, referral method, commission rates, payout model), though the 'taste-only' phrase is jargon that could be dropped or clarified.

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 tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool returns when wallet is omitted versus provided, nor explain how the X-SQLGuard-Ref header should be used by the agent, leaving some operational details to inference.

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 100%, and the wallet parameter already has its own descriptive text ('Optional 0x wallet — if set, returns owed/paid status'). The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies this as the affiliate/referral tool ('Agent-native affiliate', 'Earn $30 USDC per referred Pilot'), which distinguishes it from the many sibling tools like sqlguard_balance or sqlguard_catalog. However, it lacks a precise verb like 'query' or 'get' — the actual operation is implied by the optional wallet parameter rather than stated directly.

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 'PRIMARY:' label indicates the intended use (referring Pilot Challenge or Gateway Pilot), and the commission comparisons ('Session/Cert/Bind stay ~20%') hint at relationships among related tools. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor named alternatives.

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