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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by explicitly confirming no payment or withdrawal is triggered and by listing the exact data domains read, which is important for a financial-status tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb, a comprehensive list of returned data, and a short safety disclaimer. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what data can be expected and explicitly rules out side effects, covering the main risks an agent needs to know before calling.

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 schema already explains agent_key as a private API key. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema carries the burden adequately.

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?

Description uses a clear verb ('Read') and names the exact resource: referral status data. It enumerates specific outputs (referral code, participation proof, registrations, payouts, receipts), making it easy to distinguish from sibling referral tools like speedbot_referral_program or speedbot_referral_join.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs a read-only view of referral status. It also states a relevant exclusion ('No payment or withdrawal is triggered'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-to-use versus sibling guidance.

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