Referral Program

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to carry the safety profile alone. It still adds useful context by stating that a wallet signature identity is required and by naming the referral statuses (PENDING/ACTIVE) and SUN-denominated bonus fields.

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 purpose and auth requirement are front-loaded, and every clause adds concrete return-field information. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description covers the important behavioral context an agent needs: wallet signature identity, read-only nature, returned field families, and list statuses. With an output schema present and annotations already covering safety, the remaining gaps around pagination across lists are relatively minor.

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 67%, with limit and filterBy already described in the schema and offset undocumented. The description mentions the referral list and PENDING/ACTIVE statuses, which gives some context for filterBy, but it does not explain limit, offset, or how pagination applies across the multiple lists returned.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read the logged-in user's referral status') and then enumerates the exact fields returned: referral code, sponsor, counts, bonuses, rank, list statuses, and payouts. That level of specificity distinguishes it from nearby sibling reads such as user info, session status, and permissions.

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?

It implies when to use it by saying it reads the logged-in user's referral status and requires a wallet signature identity, which is a useful prerequisite. However, it names no alternative sibling tool and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so routing still requires inference.

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