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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral facts: the fee tiering and the verification requirements for agent vs. human buyers. It still omits what a mutation (create/POST) actually does on the server, whether it needs idempotency, or what is returned, so it is useful but far from transparent.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence stacks several eligibility rules into a dense run-on with three parallel 'verified/verified/normal fee' clauses, making it harder to parse than necessary for the amount of information conveyed.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with 9% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and a nested body object, the description is too thin: it explains the business rules of the referral but leaves the calling contract (required agent_key, idempotency, body contents, response) undocumented.

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 only 9% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It references concepts like 'owner emails', 'email', and 'payout address' that loosely touch some fields, but the actual parameters (agent_key, handle, token, idempotency_key, payment_signature, the nested body) are unexplained; only 'create: POST /v1/brought-demand' hints at the action enum.

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 first clause gives a concrete verb and object – 'Get a link to share with your own buyers' – so an agent can tell this produces a referral/shareable link rather than reading data. It is somewhat blurred by the fee-policy sentences that follow, and it never names itself against siblings like referral_status, but the core purpose is legible.

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 establishes eligibility context (new buyers via the link pay a lower fee; buyers sharing an owner/email/payout address pay the normal fee), which is genuine when-to-use information. However it never states when NOT to use it or points to a sibling alternative such as referral_status, so routing is only implied.

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