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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the reward is an ongoing SHARE, not a signup bonus, describes payment from the faucet's daily budget, and mentions the cap ensuring it never exceeds a fixed slice. This is substantial, though it omits potential side effects like code uniqueness or irreversibility, which a cautious agent might need.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the functional usage before explaining the reward model. While thorough, the reward explanation is lengthy and could be tightened without losing meaning. Every sentence adds value, but it is slightly verbose relative to the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, reward mechanics) and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: how to retrieve info, how to claim, what the reward structure is, and the cap. No critical operational detail 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?

The schema already documents both parameters (wallet and code, with type and length constraints, coverage 100%). The description adds critical semantic value by clarifying the conditional relationship: wallet alone yields info, wallet+code claims a code. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions and is essential for correct usage.

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 states the tool handles the referral programme, specifying two distinct uses: pass wallet to view code/count/earnings, or pass wallet+code to claim a code. This is a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes itself from any potential alternatives by focusing on referral mechanics alone.

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?

Explicit usage scenarios are given: 'Pass a wallet to see that wallet's code, referral count and earnings; pass wallet AND code to claim a code.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke the tool and how parameters should be provided. Though no alternatives are mentioned, the conditions are clear enough to prevent misuse.

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