referral_programs_get_daily_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'rolling' qualifier, hinting at a moving window, but never states the window length, the account scoping behavior, or the response shape — leaving the one genuinely ambiguous behavioral trait unexplained.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the resource and outcome, followed by the granularity note and endpoint path. Nothing is padded, though the raw HTTP path contributes little for an agent that already knows the tool name.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying what comes back — and it only says 'rolling earned stats, one point per day.' The data structure, window length, and currency/units of the stats are left unstated for a tool whose whole value is its return data.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The phrase 'of all the account referral programs' usefully confirms there is no filtering or pagination argument — the call is implicitly account-wide and unfiltered.

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: 'Get rolling earned stats of all the account referral programs,' with the unit of granularity ('one point per day') and the underlying endpoint. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling referral tools like get_history, get_tiers, and get_top by scoping to per-day earned stats, though it never names an alternative.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of how this differs from referral_programs_get_history, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with. The 'one point per day' note implies a time-series use case, but the agent must infer the selection criterion itself.

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