get_referral_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It lists what data is shown but does not disclose any behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or that it is read-only. The zero parameters imply no side effects, but explicit mention is lacking.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key data fields. No wasted words.

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 and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It could explicitly state it retrieves data for the current user, but the context implies this.

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 zero parameters. The description adds meaning by stating the tool returns referral data, commissions, and payout status, clarifying what the tool does without needing parameter details.

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 it shows referral data, including referrals, pending/paid commissions, and payout request status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_referral_code (which generates) and request_referral_payout (which submits requests).

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 viewing referral data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_credit_history or get_credits_info. 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.