pillar_invite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the outcome (a shareable link that accrues rewards for sign-ups), which usefully implies a read-style retrieval rather than a state mutation. It omits whether the call requires an authenticated/unlocked Pillar account, whether the link is stable per user, or whether calling it provisions anything on-chain.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the reward rationale immediately after. The trailing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is mildly off-topic for a referral-link getter and could be dropped without loss.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (a referral link) and why. The remaining gap is the lack of sibling disambiguation against pillar_dca_invite/pillar_direct_dca_invite, which matters in a toolset this crowded.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter language is present.

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 verb+resource are specific: 'Get your Pillar referral link to invite friends.' It is clearly a referral/invite generator rather than a transfer or staking action. However, it does not differentiate itself from the very similar siblings pillar_dca_invite and pillar_direct_dca_invite, leaving the agent to guess which invite flavor applies.

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?

The description explains what the link is for (sharing with friends) but never states when to call this tool versus the two sibling invite tools, nor any precondition such as requiring a connected Pillar wallet. The appended tip routes to earning_opportunities, which is an unrelated cross-sell rather than guidance for this tool.

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