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

Adds genuinely non-obvious business behavior: who qualifies for the lower fee, that agent buyers and the calling agent need verified owner emails, that overlapping owner/email/payout addresses revert to the normal fee, and that create maps to POST /v1/brought-demand. It does not mention idempotency or whether repeated creates produce multiple links, but adds real context beyond the annotations.

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 value proposition, then the eligibility caveats, then the action/endpoint. The middle sentence is dense and clause-heavy but every clause carries fee-relevant information, so little could be cut without losing meaning.

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 mutating, 11-parameter tool with 9% schema coverage and no output schema, the description omits the required agent_key, the body shape, idempotency behavior, and what the returned link looks like or how it is scoped. The eligibility rules are thorough but the operational detail an agent needs to actually invoke it 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 description coverage is 9% and the description names zero parameters — agent_key (the required one for create), idempotency_key, the opaque nested body object and the other 11 properties are all undocumented here. The mention of 'verified owner emails' gestures at prerequisites but does not explain any field.

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 concrete verb+resource: get a shareable referral link that gives new buyers a lower fee, and names the underlying action (create: POST /v1/brought-demand). It is clear what the tool produces, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling referral_status tool, so the agent has to infer the division of labor.

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 context is implied ('share with your own buyers') and eligibility conditions for the lower fee are spelled out in detail. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus referral_status or how to check an existing link, and no prerequisites/ordering guidance for the create action.

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