referral_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral fact that the link is scoped to the signed-in user rather than a parameterizable account. It says nothing about return format (a URL string vs. an object), failure behavior when unauthenticated, or whether the link can be rotated — meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. For a zero-parameter lookup, this is appropriately sized.

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 trivial zero-param read with no output schema, the description conveys enough to select and call it correctly. The only shortfall is that the return value's shape must be discovered empirically, which a brief phrase like "returns a URL" would have closed.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating the user is implicitly the signed-in one, confirming there is nothing to supply.

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?

States a specific verb ("Get") and a specific resource ("the signed-in user's referral link"), so the agent knows exactly what comes back conceptually. It does not name or differentiate itself from any sibling, though none of the listed siblings (whoami, get_bookmarks, beli_get) overlaps with referral links.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. The phrase "signed-in user's" only implicitly signals that authentication is required and that no other user can be targeted.

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