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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what side effects may occur, what permissions are needed, or what the "follow-up reply" referenced by the parameter implies — leaving the agent without essential behavioral context.

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 single sentence is structurally compact and front-loaded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than concise communication. It does not earn its place because it conveys almost no actionable information beyond the tool name.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, an output schema, and any meaningful behavioral or usage context, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain what the pipeline does, when to use it, or what to expect.

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 100%, so the single optional notification_message parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, but the high schema coverage supports a baseline score of 3.

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 only says "Run the view_referrals pipeline," which largely restates the tool name without explaining what viewing referrals entails. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like get_referrals_and_overdrafts_balance or get_additional_referrals_and_balances, nor clarify whether it retrieves, displays, or processes referral data.

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 guidance about when to use view_referrals versus the multiple referral-related sibling tools. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose this tool.

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