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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the $3 traffic bonuses for accepted invitations and first successful publication, the eligibility window for accepting an invitation, and that bonuses are traffic budgets, not cash. It also clarifies that reading does not activate anything.

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 information-dense but well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then elaborating on eligibility, bonus mechanics, and usage workflow. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition. It efficiently covers the what, how, and when.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it returns, how to share it, the bonus rules, and how to apply a bonus via a sibling tool. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 describe beyond the schema. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details since none exist. No additional semantics are 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource: the organization's stable invitation code/link, eligibility, counts, and bonuses. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like apply_referral_code and start_sandbox_traffic by focusing on the read-only nature and the specific data returned.

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?

Explicitly states there is no enrollment step and that every member can read it. It gives clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. when to use start_sandbox_traffic (for applying the bonus) and even mentions consulting get_sandbox_traffic. It also clarifies that reading alone does not start traffic, preventing misuse.

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