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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds scope ('fills you've reported') and ordering ('most recent first'), which is useful but limited. It does not disclose pagination behavior, limits, or return format, but this is a simple read operation.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 a simple list with strong annotations covering safety. The description provides the essential scope and ordering. While there is no output schema and the description does not specify return fields, for a straightforward list tool this is sufficient. It slightly misses the opportunity to mention the limit parameter or response contents, but overall is complete enough.

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 0% and the description does not mention the parameters at all. The limit and api_key parameters are left entirely to the schema's basic type/default info. Since the description must compensate for the missing details and fails to do so, the parameter guidance is inadequate.

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 clearly states the tool lists 'Recent fills you've reported with partner_report_fill, most recent first.' This identifies the specific verb (list/recent fills), the resource (your own reported fills), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool partner_report_fill which is the write counterpart.

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?

The description implicitly conveys when to use this tool: to view fills you previously reported via partner_report_fill. It clearly connects to the reporting tool, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'use partner_report_fill to submit new fills'). The context is clear enough for selecting between the read and write pair.

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