get_referral_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior itself. It mentions the output (code/link, reward, progress) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if both parameters are provided or none, or error behavior. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic output.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main output and immediately follows with the key usage instruction. Every word earns its place.

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 lookup tool, the description covers the core return information and the required identifier. However, it lacks details on behavior when parameters are missing or both provided, error handling, and any side effects. With no output schema or annotations, this is an acceptable but not thorough coverage.

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 description adds meaning by clarifying that external_id and email are alternative identifiers (OU), which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain precedence, consequences of providing both, or details about the parameters' formats. Since schema coverage is 0%, it partially compensates but not fully.

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 states that the tool returns a customer's referral code/link plus reward and progress, using a specific verb (get, implied by name) and resource. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_renewal_campaign_link, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 instructs to provide external_id or email, indicating a required input condition, but does not specify when to use this tool versus other get tools or any exclusions. Usage context is implied but not made explicit.

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