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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: tool requires permission checks, is restricted for free businesses, has prerequisite tool calls, and requires user-facing warnings. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with the purpose first, then detailed usage guidelines. It is concise for the amount of information it conveys, though it could potentially be streamlined.

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 lack of output schema (no return value description) and 0% schema coverage, the description should cover output and parameter details. It focuses entirely on preconditions and access control, omitting what the tool returns and how parameters affect results. This is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. However, it only implicitly mentions communityId as the required parameter. It does not explain pageNo, sortBy, status, pageSize, sortOrder, or their constraints. This is a significant gap.

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 the tool lists referred communities/referees for a managed community and clarifies that business and community are interchangeable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_community_referees' which may have a similar purpose.

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 provides explicit guidelines: check business permissions, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, show grace-period warnings and verified resubscribe links, and never proceed when access is blocked. It also states FREE businesses cannot use this tool.

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