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

With no annotations, the description supplies important behavioral context: verified-owner authorization, reward policy (Surgemesh credits only, never cash, coming soon), and the returned stat categories. It still does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect behavior or rate limits, leaving a minor transparency gap.

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 returned resource is front-loaded, followed by compact policy and eligibility caveats. The wording is tight and every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description explains the returned fields and the key eligibility and business constraints. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, with sibling routing being the only notable omission elsewhere.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to document beyond the baseline. The description's 'Your' implies the code is tied to the authenticated owner but introduces no undocumented inputs.

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 enumerates the specific resource contents: referral code, share link, and stats such as signups, qualified referrals, and credits. The purpose is clear, but it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling get_* tools.

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 clear eligibility context with 'Verified owners only' and clarifies current availability: codes can be shared now while rewards are coming soon. It does not name alternatives or explain when another sibling such as get_analytics or get_usage would be more appropriate.

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