Parrain.com

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by stating that only active brands are searched and that results include slug, indicative bonuses, and profile URL, but it does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 two compact clauses with no wasted text. The core purpose and return fields are front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with a fully documented schema, the description is largely complete and even summarizes return fields without an output schema. Its main gap is the lack of relationship guidance to the sibling obtenir_parrain.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces that search is by name or slug fragment, but adds little beyond the schema and does not discuss the limit parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching active referral brands on Parrain.com by name or slug. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling obtenir_parrain.

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?

It gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus obtenir_parrain, nor any when-not conditions. The searchable fields are implied by the purpose, but selection guidance is absent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses key traits: fair rotation, output limited to the ad URL (never the code or link), and the counter incrementing only when a human opens the URL. It does not cover error conditions or permission requirements, but the disclosed behavior is substantial for a simple selection tool.

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 four concise sentences and front-loads the core action. The final sentence is an instruction rather than tool description but is short and useful; overall there is little waste.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, the counter behavior, and the follow-up action. It omits edge cases or failure modes, but an agent has enough to call and use the result correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents the single slug parameter with an example. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline 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 clearly states the action: a fair rotation that selects a sponsor and returns only the ad URL. It distinguishes itself from a generic search by specifying the distinct output restriction, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool chercher_marque.

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 by the reference to the 'Obtenir un parrain' button, and the final sentence gives a post-call instruction to encourage the user to visit the page. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to the sibling tool chercher_marque.

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