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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the 20-job bonus side effect, that the bonus is once-ever, that repeats return the same link without re-granting, and that no message is sent. This adds real call-time consequences on top of idempotentHint/destructiveHint.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the gating condition, then behavior, then edge cases. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

Covers the gating condition, return value (public URL), side effect, idempotency and silence, with no output schema needing explanation. The only gap is the unexplained request_id parameter.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter, request_id (a uuid), is never explained in the description. The idempotency sentence hints that repeats are deduplicated but does not tie that behavior to request_id, so the agent must guess its purpose and format.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (create referral link) plus the concrete outputs: a public URL and the once-ever 20-job bonus. The scope is unambiguous and no sibling tool overlaps it.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition ('only when the user explicitly requests an invitation link') and three named exclusions (installation, startup, automatically after an exhaustion notice). Nothing is left to inference.

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