get_referral_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's one addition is the required OAuth scope, which is genuinely useful auth context, but it says nothing about what the response contains or whether a link is minted on first call.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the resource statement is front-loaded ahead of the scope requirement. It is efficient, though the efficiency comes partly from under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could reasonably say what the return looks like, but it leaves the payload shape (link URL vs. counters vs. both) unspecified. For a no-param read tool the bar is low and the scope note helps, but the ambiguity about returned content is a real gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to compensate for on this dimension.

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 phrase "Referral link and stats" names the resource but is a noun fragment rather than a specific verb+resource statement, leaving ambiguous whether the tool returns the referral link, aggregated stats, or both. There are no sibling referral tools to disambiguate against, which softens the cost, but an agent still cannot tell precisely what payload to expect.

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 only guidance is the auth prerequisite "Requires scope `referrals:read`". There is no statement of when to call this versus get_analytics_overview, get_usage, or list_leads, and no exclusions or preconditions beyond the scope.

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