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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds ordering (newest first), page semantics, status values (pending/success/failure), and the meaning of tx_hash and total. It stops short of noting rate limits or whether pending rows shift across pages, which is the only remaining behavioral gap.

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 resource and ordered well: purpose, read semantics, return fields, then the alternative. Nearly every sentence earns its place; 'Never Copy Trading payouts.' is terse to the point of slight ambiguity about whether it is a scope exclusion or an instruction.

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 read-only paginated list, the description covers scope, ordering, pagination, field meanings, and the sibling alternative, which is more than enough given an output schema already exists. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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% and both params (page, limit) are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'paged' and 'total is the count across pages' add a little framing but no new constraint on page or limit beyond what the schema states.

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?

Names a specific resource (USDC referral payouts swept to the user's agent wallet) and its scope (paged, newest first), and points at the sibling it is not ('For what is still accruing, read pending_usdc from get_my_invite_codes'). An agent can distinguish it from get_my_invite_codes without opening either 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 an explicit alternative plus the condition that selects it (accruing amounts -> get_my_invite_codes.pending_usdc) and an explicit exclusion ('Never Copy Trading payouts'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated rather than inferred.

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