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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the default sort order ('newest first'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination behavior or what 'recent' means as a time bound.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with every clause (scope, ordering, included field) earning its place. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but three of five parameters (page, limit, affiliate_id) are undocumented in both schema and description, and pagination/recency limits are unstated. Adequate for a simple list tool, but not 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?

Schema coverage is only 40%: id and state are documented in the schema, but page, limit and affiliate_id have no descriptions anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the gap on filtering or pagination controls.

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 (referrals) scoped to 'the current account', and adds the ordering (newest first) plus what each row carries (affiliate's name). It is clearly distinguishable from list_affiliates/list_commissions by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated alternatives, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read path for referral records as opposed to list_commissions or list_affiliates.

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