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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful context about the returned fields and ordering ("newest first"), but does not explain pagination behavior, how limit interacts with ordering, or what include_samples does.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose and ordering are front-loaded before the optional filtering details.

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?

With four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent can infer the record shape and optional app/status filters, but cannot know how many records are returned by default or what include_samples changes.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full parameter burden. It mentions app_id and status (including the pending/rewarded enum values) but completely omits limit, its default of 25, and include_samples, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List referral records") and enumerates the record contents (referrer/referee, reward coupon code, status). It clearly distinguishes the tool from coupon- and plan-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly call out an alternative.

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 states that scoping by app_id and/or status is optional, which implies a basic usage pattern. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling list tools such as list_coupon_invites.

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