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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool is read-only in nature ('Show'), explicitly scopes it to the current connection, and discloses output limitations such as 'no buyer details' and 'last 5 paid referred orders.' This gives the agent a solid understanding of what the tool will and will not do, though it does not cover error or authentication failure 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists the exact components of the summary in a compact enumeration. Each clause adds specific, useful detail without filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information being conveyed.

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 there is no output schema, the description does the necessary work of specifying what the response contains: referral URL, order counts, commission, unpaid balance, payout destination status, and last 5 paid orders. It also covers the single parameter's usage condition, making the tool fully actionable for an agent.

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 schema already documents the customerKey parameter and explicitly says to omit it when connected through a personal token URL, so the description largely repeats that guidance. The added phrase 'Only works for the customer of this connection' provides slight extra context, but the description does not meaningfully expand beyond the schema's 100% coverage.

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 — 'Show your referral summary as a GYOTAK referrer' — and then enumerates exactly what the tool returns (referral URL, paid/unpaid orders, commission, payout status, last 5 orders). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_order_history or check_payment_status by focusing on the referrer summary rather than general orders or payments.

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 the tool is applicable: 'Only works for the customer of this connection.' It also provides a concrete parameter condition: if connected through a personal token URL, omit customerKey. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool versus siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear for a self-contained summary tool.

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