aiva_get_referrals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get referral history', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits like data freshness or access requirements, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 50%, with 'affiliateId' documented but 'dateRange' only having an enum without a description in the schema. The tool description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's implied by 'referral history', such as explaining the date range options or affiliate ID format. Since the schema covers half the parameters, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'referral history for an affiliate', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'aiva_get_affiliate' or 'aiva_list_affiliates', which might also involve affiliate data, so it doesn't reach the highest score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for historical data only or how it differs from other affiliate-related tools like 'aiva_get_affiliate'. Without any context or exclusions, the agent must infer usage based on the name alone.

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