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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: the key is shown only once, must be kept private, and the application token stops working after this call. The token invalidation is a critical side effect the annotations (non-idempotent, non-destructive) do not convey. This is exactly the kind of context the description should supply.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the precondition and followed by output and side-effect warnings in priority order. No filler; each sentence carries distinct, necessary information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the return content (partner link, code, key) and covers preconditions, secrecy, and the token-invalidation consequence. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and handle the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds material semantics: it explains that application_token is consumed and stops working after this call, which affects how the parameter should be treated. That is real added meaning over the schema text.

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 action (collecting/returning the partner link, code, and partner key) and identifies the resource precisely. The reference to partner_get_* tools helps distinguish downstream usage. It is clear but the verb is somewhat passive ('returns') rather than framing the claim operation itself.

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 a clear precondition ('After the person accepted the terms') and points to the downstream family ('use it for the partner_get_* tools'). However, it does not explicitly exclude or contrast with close siblings like partner_rotate_key or partner_apply, so the agent must infer sequencing.

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