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

Even without annotations, the description discloses the stable nature of the URL, free rate-limited pricing, attribution mechanism, and exactly what is returned (canonical URL and x-ref snippet). It clearly implies a non-destructive read operation with no side effects.

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 dense but efficient, covering purpose, return values, usage, and pricing in a few sentences without wasted words. Each sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description fully covers what the agent needs to know: how to get the URL, what it looks like, how the x-ref works, and the caching guidance. No output schema is provided, so the description effectively explains the return values and usage 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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a description for agentId, so the description does not need to add more. The tool description doesn't elaborate on the parameter, but the existing schema is sufficient, and the description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning.

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 states 'Get your agent's shareable Flipr referral URL' and goes on to describe both the canonical URL and x-ref snippet, making it distinct from sibling referral tools such as stats, leaderboard, and payout tools.

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?

It provides clear usage context: call once and cache, send the x-ref snippet to another agent verbatim, and notes that the URL is stable. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool in favor of other referral tools, though the purpose itself implies the alternative.

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