Get referral program

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the genuinely non-derivable operational fact that OAuth integrations require the referral_program:read scope — exactly the kind of auth context that annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the purpose leads and the scope/permission facts follow. The telegraphic second sentence is slightly choppy but costs the reader nothing.

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 read-only retrieval tool with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, the essentials are present, and the auth-scope note is a real bonus. It still says nothing about what the referral program payload looks like or how paginated results behave, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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%, with page, limit, account and publication_id all documented in the schema itself. The description contributes nothing about parameter semantics, so the 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?

"Get referral program" restates the name/title almost verbatim, adding only the scope hint "Reads account data." It is not misleading and the verb+resource is identifiable, but there is no differentiation from siblings or statement of what a referral program object actually contains.

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 named alternative. "Reads account data" describes the target, not the conditions under which this tool should be selected over the many other get_* tools.

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