my_referral_link

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral guidance about using a verified partnerExternalRef and never guessing it from an email, though it omits details like failure behavior if no link exists.

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, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the key usage and parameter warning. No wasted wording.

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?

For a simple read-only single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, and the critical ID-verification warning. It does not specify what happens if the partner has no referral link, but annotations and schema cover most other needs.

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 100%, and the schema already defines partnerExternalRef. The description adds meaningful constraints by calling it a verified ID and explicitly warning against deriving it from an email.

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 identifies a specific resource, 'a partner's own referral link,' and makes clear it is retrieval rather than creation. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like create_link, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

It gives a clear use case: answering a partner in chat or an AI agent. It also warns not to guess the partner ID from an email, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as create_link or list_referrals.

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