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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It states that it generates code, but does not explicitly mention that it doesn't execute the fetch or that the output is only a sample snippet. This leaves some ambiguity about side effects, though the operation is inherently non-destructive.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the main verb, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for a tool with minimal complexity.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present), and the description adequately states the core purpose. However, it lacks guidance on selecting this snippet variant over other referral snippet tools, which would make it fully 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 schema covers the single parameter 'style' fully with an enum and description, so the description adds no new parameter information. Baseline per the rubric is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 uses a clear verb 'Generates' with a specific resource ('referral progress, rewards, or status'). It distinguishes the tool from general referral snippet tools by focusing on status, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_referral_sdk_snippet or generate_referral_route_snippet. The style parameter in the schema hints at usage options, but the description itself gives no exclusions or contextual triggers.

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