Trigger Referral

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

The annotations already signal mutating and destructive behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond them: optional delayInDays holds the credit before awarding, and campaignId falls back to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID. It explains the withholding window purpose with the refund-window example, giving agents practical context for side effects.

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 tightly written in three sentences with no filler. The core action and usage condition are front-loaded, followed by the delay behavior and campaign targeting behavior, so each sentence 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?

Given the output schema, the annotations, and the 4-parameter input schema, the description covers the important selection and invocation details: when to use it, how delay works, and how campaign targeting resolves. It does not describe edge cases or explicit consequences beyond credit awarding, but nothing critical is missing for a competent 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds real semantics for delayInDays (hold 1-90 days before awarding) and campaignId (targets provided campaign or defaults to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID). participantId and participantEmail remain schema-only, but they are self-descriptive and the anyOf constraint clarifies that one 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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Trigger referral credit for a referred participant', clearly identifying the action and its target. It also names the exact integration condition ('Sign up + Qualifying Action'), which distinguishes this tool from generic participant or campaign operations.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'use when your trigger is Sign up + Qualifying Action'. It provides clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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