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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by explaining the referral deal (10% of usage charges, paid monthly in cash) and that earnings are cumulative ('so far'). However, it does not explicitly state that this is read-only or describe edge cases such as empty referral data.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the most important items (referral code and link) and then gives the deal and earnings details. Every phrase contributes meaningful information.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main return elements: code, link, deal, and per-workspace earnings. It is reasonably complete for an agent to know what to expect, though it does not clarify whose referral code is being returned or how the optional workspace parameter affects results.

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 workspace parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the workspace parameter, which is acceptable under the baseline, but it also does not enrich parameter understanding.

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 clearly identifies the resource (referral code, link, deal, and per-workspace earnings) and implies a read/retrieve operation, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list.' It is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools such as billing or usage because it focuses on referral-specific 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description makes clear this tool provides referral information, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of alternatives like usage, billing, or share. There is no when-not or exclusion guidance, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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