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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the URL is automatically issued after first payment confirmation, that calling the tool can issue a missing URL, and that referrers earn 5% on paid orders. It does not explicitly state what happens when the user has no paid order, but the conditional side effect is clearly disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and each sentence adds useful context around issuance, commission, and parameter behavior. The phrase 'call this to see it again' is slightly redundant with 'look up,' but overall the description is efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the main outcome, conditional issuance, commission, and a parameter caveat, but it leaves one important gap: it never explicitly states that a paid order is a prerequisite or what happens if the caller has never had one. Since there is no output schema, and the annotations provide no safety/side-effect context, this missing eligibility detail keeps it from being fully 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 input schema already describes all three optional parameters in full, including the customerKey omission rule and the default for name. The description's mention of omitting customerKey repeats schema guidance rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the high schema coverage keeps this at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up your GYOTAK referral MCP URL.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from sibling payment, order, and catalog tools, making its function immediately identifiable without restating the tool name.

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 gives clear context for when to call the tool: to re-view an already issued URL or to have one issued if a paid order exists but no URL is present. It also provides a conditional usage rule (omit customerKey for personal token URLs), though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use it.

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