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

Annotations already indicate a mutating but non-destructive action (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds only 'attributable' as a behavioral trait and does not describe side effects, persistence, or response behavior. It does not contradict the annotations, so this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action immediately and could not be meaningfully shorter.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description omits parameter semantics and any indication of what the tool returns or how it fits into the AgentLot workflow. With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is minimally usable but leaves significant gaps.

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 provides two bare string properties, 'campaign' and 'destination', with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain either parameter's format, optionality, or meaning. The word 'attributable' only weakly hints at campaign context and leaves the agent to guess what destination should contain.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it creates an 'AgentLot referral link'. It also includes the qualifier 'attributable', which distinguishes this from generic link-creation tools and from other create_* siblings such as create_order or create_subscription_draft.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tool, workflow context, or precondition, so an agent must infer when creating a referral link is appropriate.

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