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

Goes well beyond the sparse annotations: it discloses the binding POSTs run results as an HMAC-signed callback, is born DRAFT, returns the signing secret exactly once, and that the secret cannot be retrieved later—only rotated. These are critical behavioral traits not inferable from the schema.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, the one-time secret warning, and the activation follow-up. The most safety-critical information is front-loaded without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given an 8-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this description supplies the essential non-schema context: DRAFT lifecycle, auth mechanism, one-time secret, and next step. The only minor gap is the exact success response shape, but the one-time-secret caveat is disclosed, making invocation guidance sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the structured schema already documents every parameter. The description adds context about HMAC-signed callbacks and external endpoints, but does not explain individual parameter semantics; this is acceptable because the schema carries that burden.

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: 'Create a partner delivery binding for an agent'. It also distinguishes the tool from lifecycle siblings by noting the binding is 'born DRAFT' and must later be activated, so an agent can tell it apart from delete_partner_binding, rotate_partner_binding_secret, and set_partner_binding_status.

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?

Gives clear lifecycle context: the binding is created as DRAFT and should be activated with set_partner_binding_status once configured. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use it, but creation semantics and the named follow-up are enough for an agent to route correctly among siblings.

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