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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: authentication requirement, sort order, and the fact that decline reasons and CV feedback are surfaced per request. It stops short of noting result volume or truncation for a list that could grow.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: prerequisite, payload/sort, and sibling disambiguation. The disambiguation is placed last as a natural redirect and nothing is repeated from the annotations.

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 parameters, full annotation coverage and an output schema handling return shape, this description covers everything an agent needs to select and call it. The only gap is guidance on result size or whether the listing is paginated/limited.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. It correctly implies the result set is determined entirely by the caller's identity rather than by any input.

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 ("Lists the referral requests the signed-in user sent") and pins the scope narrowly to outbound requests, with ordering ("newest first"). It explicitly separates itself from list_referrer_requests, which is the one sibling an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Gives both the prerequisite ("Requires techjobs.vn sign-in") and the routing rule: inbound requests are in list_referrer_requests. An agent can pick between the two list tools without opening either schema.

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