Get referral stats

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

The description discloses that it requires authentication ('for the authenticated user') and that it is available to free accounts, which are useful behavioral notes. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, or other behaviors. Given no annotations are present, the description carries the burden but only partially covers transparency.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded. It first states the core functionality (returns referral counts) and then adds a relevant note about free account availability. No unnecessary words or details are included.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description specifies the time periods and the user scope. It does not detail the exact output structure (e.g., whether counts are in a list or object), but since no output schema is provided, the description offers sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected return. It is slightly incomplete in not specifying the return format explicitly, but not critically so.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-related information because there are none to describe. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool returns referral counts for specific time periods (today, last 7 days, last 30 days, all time) for the authenticated user. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope is unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle links, banners, or other data.

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 implies usage by describing the returned data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it compares to other tools, leaving the context implicit rather than explicit.

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