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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states what the tool details, without mentioning whether it is read-only, what output to expect (despite an output schema existing), or any side effects. The informational nature is implied by 'Detail' but not explicitly stated.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word adds meaning, with no wasted text.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the subject matter: the referral lifecycle and APIs. It does not include usage guidance (scored elsewhere), but for a simple explain tool, the description is reasonably complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond what the empty schema already shows. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter description is needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Detail' and names the exact resource: 'the referrer/referee lifecycle and required APIs.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like explain_referrals_basics (which covers general concepts) and generate_referral_* (which generate code snippets).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for explaining the referral flow, but it does not contrast it with siblings like explain_referrals_basics or get_referral_dashboard_guide, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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