get_referral_info

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation with no side effects, but lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential errors. While safe, more explicit behavioral context would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and then efficiently enumerates the returned data. Every part is informative with no redundancy.

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 no parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description covers the tool's functionality comprehensively. It omits error handling or rate limit notes, but for a simple read operation it is nearly complete.

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?

No parameters are present, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds valuable output semantics by listing the specific fields returned, which is sufficient for zero-parameter tools.

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 retrieves referral program details for the authenticated user, listing specific outputs like referral code, number of referrals, and bonus percentage. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_profile or get_wallet_info by focusing solely on referral data.

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 implies usage for retrieval but does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like generate_invite_link or get_mining_status. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned, though the sibling names provide context.

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