ghl_affiliate_validate_referral_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuine context beyond them — location-scoped uniqueness semantics, the Sub-Account token requirement, and the OAuth scope. It stops short of describing the response payload, but the added auth/scope and uniqueness behavior is more than annotation restatement.

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 core semantics are front-loaded in the first two sentences and every one earns its place. The leading line 'Validate Referral Id' merely restates the title, and the endpoint/auth/scope block is boilerplate metadata, slightly diluting efficiency but not damaging.

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?

For a two-param read-only validation call with no output schema, the description conveys purpose, uniqueness semantics, auth prerequisite, and scope, which is enough to invoke correctly. The only minor gap is the absence of any hint about the returned availability shape, but the 'reports as unavailable' phrasing partially covers the response meaning.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (locationId, referralId) are fully documented with examples and pattern constraints. The description reinforces the location-scope meaning of locationId but adds no format/syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Validate Referral Id' / 'Check whether a referral id is free to use') and then explains the exact semantics: uniqueness is scoped to the whole location, so an id from another campaign also reports unavailable. This distinguishes it precisely from ghl_affiliate_update_referral_id (mutation) and ghl_affiliate_validate_customer_lead (different resource) without ambiguity.

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 makes the use case obvious (check availability before claiming an id) and clarifies the critical edge case that a conflict can arise from another campaign. It does not explicitly name the alternative write tool or state prerequisites like 'call before update_referral_id', so guidance is strong but not fully framed as when/when-not.

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