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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result concerns the user's referral link and earnings; it does not explain permissions, scope, or return structure beyond that minimal hint.

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 two-word noun fragment rather than a structured sentence. It is not bloated, but it is under-specified rather than concise, and it lacks front-loaded actionable detail.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one fully documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a minimal indication of what is returned. It is adequate at the minimum-viable level, though it could clarify the relationship between referral link, earnings, and the organization context.

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 100%, and the single organizationId parameter is documented as 'Approved workspace id only.' The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the baseline is 3 when the schema fully carries parameter semantics.

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 'Your referral link and earnings.' identifies the resource and suggests the returned content, but it does not state an explicit verb or action. It distinguishes itself somewhat from update_referral_ui_state by focusing on the user's own link and earnings, but the purpose remains inferred rather than clearly stated.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as update_referral_ui_state. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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