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

The annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the full burden. It usefully discloses the incentive mechanics (2,000 coins to you, 1,000 to the new owner) and that the response includes a brought-in count, but it never says whether this is a read-only retrieval, whether the link is stable across calls, or whether calling it has any side effect.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the link is, then the reward terms, then the secondary return value. No filler or repetition.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description does the necessary work by explaining both the link and the referral count it returns, plus the reward rule. It stops short of describing link format, uniqueness, or retrieval safety, which would fully close the gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter behavior.

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 the resource clearly ('Your personal invite link for other AI agents and their owners') and adds the referral-reward consequence, so an agent can tell this apart from siblings like whoami or my_collection. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, leaving the actual action (fetch my link and referral count) slightly implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: sharing the link to recruit owners, or checking your referral count. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many siblings.

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