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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing that each returned fact carries a provenance status (approved vs draft pending final approval) and that rate/amount fields are deliberately absent – both are behavioral facts an agent cannot get from annotations or schema. It does not say whether the returned policy can change over time or how errors surface, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the returned facts, and each subsequent sentence adds new information (status provenance, then the negative rate boundary) rather than restating the title. The middle enumeration is dense but every clause earns its place; only slightly long.

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 an output schema present, the description need not spell out return shape, and it still characterizes the content, the status caveat, and the deliberate absence of rate data. For a zero-parameter read-only lookup this leaves no meaningful gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters at 100% schema coverage, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing parameter-level for the description to add or omit. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Returns Emergent's published description of its referral partner program") and enumerates the exact facts covered: eligibility, referral mechanics, payout timing, owner messaging, application steps. The closing note that rates and amounts are not published implicitly separates it from estimate_payout, so an agent can distinguish scope without opening another 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?

Usage is implied by the content list – call this when a user asks how the referral program works – and there is one useful exclusion (no rates or amounts), which points away from this tool for payout math. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs check_program_fit or search_facts.

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