referral_add_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Generate referral analytics.' It does not state whether the tool writes files, mutates project configuration, requires authentication, checks a license, or returns analytics data. The description also gives no indication of side effects or assumptions about the project.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action. No words are wasted, and the 'Pro feature' note is a meaningful qualifier. However, it is terse to the point of omitting useful behavioral context, so it is not a model of well-rounded conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, the agent is left without important context: how the analytics relate to a referral system, what the api_key is for, what the output looks like, and whether this is a read-only generation or a project-modifying action. The tool's placement among many referral-related siblings makes this lack of context especially costly.

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 input schema documents only the 'directory' parameter, leaving 'api_key' undescribed, and schema description coverage is only 50%. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it does not compensate for the undocumented api_key or clarify what the directory should point at beyond the schema's 'Project directory'.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Generate referral analytics'), so an agent can roughly tell this is about producing analytics for a referral system. However, it does not describe what form the analytics take or how it differs from sibling tools like referral_generate_system and referral_add_rewards, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is provided about when this tool should be used, whether a referral system must already exist, which sibling tools are alternatives, or what 'Pro feature' means for invocation. The only contextual hint is the 'Pro feature' parenthetical, but it does not explain any prerequisites or exclusions.

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