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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation in a closed world. The description adds useful scope about included fields and explicitly excludes emails and account ids. However, it does not clarify whether results are paginated, ordered, or limited by time range, which matters for interpreting 'stats.'

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 concise and front-loads the key returned fields, followed by a useful exclusion note. It could be slightly stronger if it began with a clear action verb, but there is no wasted content.

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 annotations covering safety, the main missing context is the shape of the result. The description explains the core fields and exclusions, which is helpful, but leaves unclear whether this returns all referrals, a paginated list, or aggregate statistics.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The empty schema is sufficiently clear, and the description correctly focuses on the returned data instead.

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 clearly identifies the resource: people who used the user's referral code, including name/initials, join date, and active status. It is specific about the returned data but does not use an explicit action verb or differentiate from siblings like get_referral_code or get_platform_stats.

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 such as get_referral_code or get_platform_stats. The usage is only implied by the name and description.

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