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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that the generated route is for 'logging referral events,' which is useful framing but no operational detail (e.g., what the snippet contains, whether it is a stub or runnable code).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter generator, though the example route is the only element that earns extra value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; for a one-parameter tool this is close to complete. The remaining gap is the absence of any cue about when this route snippet is preferred over the referral SDK/status/validation snippet siblings.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'framework' parameter has a documented enum (express, nextjs), so the schema carries the full burden. The description mentions nothing about framework selection or how it changes the output, adding no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Generates a backend route') and gives a concrete example path ('/api/referrals/create for logging referral events'), which pins down the artifact. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling snippet generators (generate_referral_sdk_snippet, generate_referral_status_snippet, generate_referral_validation_snippet), so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named. With over a dozen sibling 'generate_*_snippet' tools, the description offers no routing signal for picking this one over the SDK, status, or validation variants.

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