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

Goes well beyond the annotations: explains the permanence, the 1% AERO reward mechanic, that the call originates from the referred wallet, that transactions are simulated and returned unsigned 'in order (and as one EIP-5792 batch)' with a sign_url, and that 'Nothing is sent.' The readOnlyHint=true annotation is fully consistent with this.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by timing, permanence, reward mechanic, and return shape in a logical order. It is dense and slightly run-on, but nearly every clause carries actionable information.

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 build tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (ordered unsigned transactions, EIP-5792 batch, sign_url, simulation, nothing sent), so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 both parameters (wallet, referrer and its ?ref=/6-char-code formats) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the contextual constraint that the caller is the referred wallet but no new syntax detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Record a referrer for this wallet') and even names the contract method (PandaReferrals.accept). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like check_referral_eligibility or get_referral_link 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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: it must happen 'before its first deposit' and is permanent. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top band.

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