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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the description need not restate safety. It adds only a slight hint about snippet content ('progress, rewards, or status') and says nothing about the generated code's shape, target language, or where it is meant to run.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Nothing in it is wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the crowded sibling set.

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. What is missing is the routing information an agent needs among the cluster of referral and status snippet generators, leaving the definition only minimally sufficient.

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 'style' parameter is fully documented in the schema (sdk vs backend-only), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description never references the style parameter or its effect on output, adding no 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 gives a concrete verb ('Generates code') and a specific resource ('referral progress, rewards, or status'), so the agent knows what comes out of the call. It does not, however, distinguish this from the many overlapping siblings such as generate_referral_sdk_snippet or generate_payment_status_snippet, even though the 'style' enum already overlaps with the SDK-snippet sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named. With siblings like generate_referral_route_snippet, generate_referral_sdk_snippet and generate_referral_validation_snippet in the list, the agent is left to guess which referral snippet fits its situation.

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