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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: FREE businesses cannot use it, and specific access checks must be performed. This goes beyond annotations by detailing access restrictions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and contains several important usage guidelines. It is efficient, though the sentence about interchangeability could be integrated elsewhere. Overall, it is concise without being overly terse.

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?

The description covers usage context well but omits any details about the return value, which is critical since no output schema exists. The tool is simple, so the summary name implies some information, but an explicit mention of what the summary contains would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'communityId' as required and hints at 'managed community', but does not explain what the ID represents or any format constraints. The agent receives minimal extra value over the raw schema.

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 states it gets a referral reward summary for a managed community, clarifying that business and community are interchangeable. However, it does not distinguish between this tool and its sibling get_community_referral_reward_summary, which may cause confusion.

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?

Excellent usage guidance: explicitly states when not to use (FREE businesses), prerequisite steps (check business permissions, call check_business_tool_access), and required actions (show grace-period warning, never proceed when blocked). This helps the agent decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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