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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). It does not mention rate limits, data freshness, error states, or response format. With minimal annotations, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 relatively short but mixes purpose with imperative usage rules, making it slightly cluttered. The front-loading of purpose is good, but the instructions about permissions could be more concise. It is adequate but not 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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description lacks essential context. It does not explain what 'referred communities/referees' means, how parameters affect results, or expected return values. The permission context is valuable but insufficient for 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?

The description does not document any of the 6 parameters (pageNo, sortBy, status, pageSize, sortOrder, communityId). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description provides no additional meaning. It only implies communityId through context.

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, using a specific verb and resource. It notes interchangeability with business referees, but does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'list_business_referees', causing potential 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?

The description provides explicit usage instructions: check business permissions, call 'check_business_tool_access' before input collection, show grace-period warnings, and never proceed when access is blocked. It clearly states when not to use the tool (FREE businesses) and prerequisites, offering excellent guidance.

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