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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description correctly does not re-litigate safety; instead it adds genuinely new behavior: a wallet-signature identity requirement and the non-obvious detail that offset/limit page the referral list and the payout list together rather than independently. It also flags that bonus values are SUN strings, which prevents unit mistakes, though it says nothing about empty-state or error behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned resource, then constraints, then pagination nuance, then the read-only/auth note; every clause carries information. The field enumeration is dense but purposeful rather than padding, though the passage is longer than strictly needed given an output schema exists.

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 paginated, read-only, 3-optional-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description covers the remaining agent-relevant gaps: auth identity requirement, pagination coupling across two lists, status filtering values, and unit conventions. No call-relevant fact is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents limit bounds, offset semantics and the PENDING/ACTIVE enum. The description earns above baseline by clarifying that the same offset/limit applies jointly to two result lists, which the per-parameter schema text does not make explicit at the tool level.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read the logged-in user's referral status') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: own referral code, sponsor, counts, bonus earned/remaining in SUN strings, rank, referral list with PENDING/ACTIVE states, and commission payouts. It also names the sibling it is not (tronsave_get_user_info), so an agent can discriminate it without opening the schema.

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?

States an explicit usage boundary ('Use for referral questions only') and routes the adjacent use case to the named alternative tool (account profile via tronsave_get_user_info). Nothing about when to pick this versus that sibling is left to inference.

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