queryReferralCode

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: only active/non-expired codes are returned, sub-accounts inherit parent account codes, links are generated based on site and language, and authentication via API Key is required. This goes well beyond the basic readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations and gives an agent clear expectations.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, three efficient bullet points covering key behavioral details, and a short auth tip. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, filtering behavior, account inheritance, link generation, and authentication requirements, leaving no critical ambiguity for an agent.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters, and no parameter explanation is needed.

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 a specific verb and resource: querying referral codes owned by the current user and their associated registration links. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like queryReferrals, so differentiation relies on the resource described.

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 when to use this tool: when you need the current user's active referral codes and links, including parent-account codes for sub-accounts. However, it does not mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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