generate_referral_code

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

The description marks the tool as a mutation and discloses that it returns an existing link if already generated. However, with no annotations, it fails to detail any side effects, permissions needed, or the scope of the mutation (e.g., what gets stored).

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 sentences with a clear title-like first sentence and a second sentence adding key detail (idempotency). No wasted words, front-loaded effectively.

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?

The description covers the basic effect but lacks details on the return format, error cases, or any prerequisites. With no output schema, more context about the returned link would help. However, for a simple tool, it is moderately 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so the description adds no param info. Per guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. No additional meaning is needed.

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 generates or returns the unique referral link for the user. The verb 'generar' and resource 'enlace de referido' are specific, and the note about returning an existing link distinguishes it from get_referral_data which likely retrieves referral data without generating.

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 idempotency (returns existing if already generated) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_referral_data. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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