get_referral_link

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does: the tool 'only returns the link and copy' and 'does not post anything', plus the login requirement. It even summarizes the referral reward terms, giving agents enough context to decide before calling.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's function, followed by relevant incentive terms and the login prerequisite. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 getter with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, output content types, absence of side effects, and prerequisite. Nothing critical is missing to decide when and how to call it.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document; the description confirms no input is needed and adds the only relevant call-time requirement (login). This is the expected baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 resource ('TaskBounty Champion referral link plus ready-to-post share copy') and states the action 'get'. It also explicitly scopes the tool as return-only and 'does not post anything', distinguishing it from the posting tools in the sibling list.

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 identifies the intended audience ('repo owners and agents') and gives an explicit prerequisite: login via taskbounty_login first. It clarifies that the tool is only for retrieving link/copy, not for posting, which implicitly routes posting use cases to sibling tools, though no alternative tool is named.

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