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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that with genuinely useful economics: 1% of Panda's reward fee, paid in AERO in the same transaction as each fee, by the fee policy contract, with no tiers and nothing to claim. That explains the payout mechanism an agent may need to relay, though it says nothing about result shape or edge cases.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second explains the economics and preempts a likely agent question ('is there anything to claim?'). Some economic detail is arguably beyond selection needs, keeping it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does list the three returned items. It does not specify shape or ordering (e.g., a list of referred wallet addresses), a minor gap, but overall sufficient for a single-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the rest.

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% with a precise pattern and description for 'wallet', so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by revealing that the wallet address itself is the referral code, which is not derivable from the schema. A modest but genuine addition.

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 names the exact resource and its payload: the wallet's own Panda invite link, the wallets it referred, and what the fee policy has paid it. That is concrete and distinguishable from generic getters. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling check_referral_eligibility, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is a read-only getter of referral state, and 'No tiers, nothing to claim' hints that no action tool is needed. However, it never states when to call this versus check_referral_eligibility or build_referral_accept, nor any prerequisites. Minimum-viable guidance rather than explicit routing.

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