request_referral_payout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutation ([mutation]), requires confirmation (confirm=true), and has a minimum amount (50€) and availability condition. However, it does not describe the return value, potential failure modes, or what happens after execution, which is a gap for a mutation tool.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus tags, all front-loaded with the main action. Every element (minimum amount, availability condition, mutation tag, confirmation requirement) serves a purpose without 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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should cover what the tool returns or error scenarios. It mentions prerequisites and mutation nature but omits details on success/failure responses, which are important for an agent to handle the tool correctly. It provides a functional but incomplete picture.

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 100% coverage with a single parameter (confirm) described as 'Pasar true para confirmar la ejecución de esta acción peligrosa'. The description reiterates this ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true para ejecutar'), adding marginal value. It clarifies the purpose of the parameter but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Solicita el pago de las comisiones pendientes' (Requests payment of pending commissions), specifying the action (request payout), resource (pending commissions), and constraints (minimum 50€, no other open request). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate_referral_code' and 'get_referral_data' by focusing on payout initiation.

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 includes a clear condition for use: 'Solo disponible si no hay otra solicitud abierta' (Only available if no other open request). It implies the tool should be used when there are pending commissions meeting the minimum threshold and no existing payout request. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as checking balances first with 'get_referral_data'.

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