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

The description adds real context beyond the sparse annotations: an auth requirement (JWT), the exact referral link format, the points economics (20 Brought points per first run, 25% affiliate share), and the fact that referred users need no Rokha page. However, it leaves the read/write nature ambiguous – the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false while the description reads like a pure stats retrieval – so an agent cannot tell whether invoking it has side effects.

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?

It is front-loaded with the JWT prerequisite and then packs only useful content; the referral-link template is a genuinely helpful detail. The single long comma-spliced enumeration of returned fields is dense and slightly hard to parse, which keeps it off a 5.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what you get back, and it does so comprehensively – code, link, signup/run/purchase counts, points, and USDC. The auth requirement is stated, and the non-destructive annotation covers safety. The unresolved side-effect question is the only 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 no parameters and schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description's link example (https://rokha.ai/?ref=<handle>) is a nice touch but not a parameter.

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 names the resource (your referral code/link) and enumerates exactly what is reported back: signups, first runs, purchases, Brought points, and credited affiliate USDC. That is specific enough for an agent to know it retrieves the caller's referral performance. It stops short of a 5 because the action verb is only implied by the title and no sibling (e.g. affiliate_me, network_referral) is named to disambiguate.

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?

There is no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tools are named, even though the sibling list contains several overlapping 'me'/referral endpoints (affiliate_me, network_referral, campaigns_me). The only usage-adjacent content is the prerequisite 'Requires a JWT', which is a precondition rather than routing guidance.

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