Troubleshoot Referral Tracking

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: unknown `symptom` keys return the symptom list, and `description` only matches when it contains a symptom label or alias verbatim. That fallback/matching semantics is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then capability scope, then return shape, then two precise edge-case rules. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the caveats are last where they belong.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes them (ordered checks, likely causes, fixes, docs links). Combined with annotations covering safety and full schema coverage of params, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID default. The description nevertheless adds resolution semantics the schema lacks: the symptom-vs-description fallback path and the verbatim matching rule. That is real added meaning on top of an already-complete schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Diagnose referral tracking and program problems.' It also draws an explicit boundary ('does not read program or participant records'), which separates it from the many read-oriented siblings like growsurf_get_participant and growsurf_get_campaign. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 states the input flexibility ('accepts a symptom or description without requiring a program or participant ID') and enumerates the symptom domains it covers, which implies when it applies. It also gives a negative scoping statement about record reads. However, it never names an alternative tool for cases outside its scope (e.g., integration_guide or client_snippets), so the routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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