referral_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully handles transparency. It discloses that the email is short, warm, has one clear ask, no pressure, and does not count against the monthly draft limit. This is sufficient behavioral disclosure for a read-only email generation 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?

The description is four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, differentiation, constraints, and a note about draft limits. No wasted words, well front-loaded.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 0 output schema, many siblings), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, constraints, and differentiation. The lack of output schema is acceptable as the tool generates an email, which is implied.

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% with good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds framing (e.g., email will be warm, short) but does not significantly extend the parameter meanings. A score of 4 acknowledges the clear schema while recognizing the description adds useful context.

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 the tool writes a short, warm email asking for referrals, and explicitly distinguishes it from testimonial_request, which asks for a written review. The verb 'write' and the resource 'referral email' are specific.

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 provides explicit guidance: use for happy clients, differentiate from testimonial_request, and includes constraints (under 120 words, no pressure, doesn't count toward draft limit). It clearly tells the agent when and how to use the tool.

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