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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful traits: the default ordering (newest first) and the shape of what is returned. It says nothing about pagination, the default limit, what include_samples toggles, or any auth/permission requirements, which leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences with no wasted words; the resource and ordering are front-loaded and the optional scoping trails. Efficient, though the parenthetical field list is slightly dense.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. Two inputs (limit, include_samples) are unexplained anywhere, and return-volume/pagination behavior is unaddressed, so the definition is not complete enough for confident 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must document 4 parameters and only explains two (app_id, status) — and the status values it repeats are already an enum in the schema. limit (default 25) and include_samples are entirely undocumented, leaving half the inputs opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (referral records) and even enumerates the returned fields (who referred whom, reward coupon code, status) plus the sort order (newest first). No sibling tool covers referrals, so no differentiation is needed, but the description stops short of anything beyond a clear purpose statement.

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?

'Optionally scope by app_id and/or status' implies when the filters apply, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives to route between. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the purpose of a listing call.

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