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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: reward timing (earned at first win, not signup), the free/no-AI-credits cost, and that it deals with the user's own data. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 description is dense but well-structured: purpose, returned fields, timing details, and cost are each clearly signaled. No sentence is wasted, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 and the input schema fully covered, the description still supplies essential context: reward timing, cost, and data scope. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call this tool and what to expect from it.

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 only parameter, user_intent, is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but none is necessary given complete schema coverage and the parameter being optional.

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 explicitly identifies the resource (the user's personal SEOmatic referral link and reward status) and enumerates the exact returned fields, so an agent knows precisely what this tool does. It is clearly distinct from broader analytics or credit-usage siblings by focusing on the referral funnel and rewards.

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?

The description gives a clear context for use: it is for reading the user's own referral link, funnel counts, and rewards. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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