gdex_invite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description earns credit by spelling out concrete side effects it will NOT perform (no code creation, no referral application, no claiming) and by stating the no-trade prerequisite. Remaining gap: it doesn't say what happens when the user has no invite link or what the response looks like when nothing is accrued.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the read-only guarantee. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 output schema, enumerating the returned status fields in the description is exactly the right compensation, and the read-only boundary is made explicit. The only substantive omission is accountRef semantics and the no-invite-exists case, which leaves a small ambiguity for a one-parameter read tool.

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 0% for the single accountRef parameter, so the description must carry that weight - yet it never mentions accountRef, what form it takes (email, wallet, ID), or whether omission defaults to the calling user. "The user's" hints at a default but leaves the parameter's meaning undocumented in both structured and unstructured fields.

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 ("Show") and resource ("existing GDEX invite link and program status"), then enumerates what the status includes (people referred, accrued, claimed, claims awaiting payout). The negative clauses ("never creates a code, applies a referral or claims anything") clearly separate it from referral-action siblings such as hl_ref_claim and hl_builder_referral.

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?

Usage context is clear: use it to inspect invite link and referral status, and it explicitly notes it works "without sharing a trade" - a real prerequisite signal. It does not name an alternative for actually creating a code or claiming rewards, so the agent must infer that other tools own those actions.

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