hl_referral_state

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it provides none. It does not state return values, side effects, permissions, or any operational traits beyond the ambiguous word 'state,' which fails to inform the agent of what happens when invoked.

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 extremely short, which might seem concise, but it is under-specification rather than efficient brevity. There is only a fragment with no useful content, so it fails to earn 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description completely fails to explain the tool's role, when to call it, or what the referral state represents. The agent cannot determine the input's meaning or the expected returned data, making the tool effectively unusable from the description alone.

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 0%, and the description offers no explanation of the required 'user' parameter. The agent receives no insight into what the user identifies (e.g., ID, address, username) or how it is used to fetch referral state.

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 'Referral program state (referral)' is nearly a tautology, restating the tool name without a clear verb or resource. It does not say whether the tool retrieves, computes, or updates referral state, nor does it differentiate from sibling state tools like hl_clearinghouse_state.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the name.

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