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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds the scope of returned artifacts and an ethical-use constraint (no pressure, never request phone numbers or door codes), which is genuinely useful context. It still says nothing about response shape or how large the kit is.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that begins with the verb and lists concrete artifacts, so nothing is buried. The enumeration is long and slightly run-on, but each listed item carries distinct information rather than padding.

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 output schema, the description does the work of describing the return payload by naming every artifact in the kit, which is the key thing an agent needs. Combined with annotations that cover safety and a fully documented single parameter, the definition is nearly complete; only pagination/size or format hints are absent.

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%, and the schema itself explains that partner_key comes from partner_claim_key and how to pass it via the REST Authorization header. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, 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?

The description uses a specific retrieval verb ('Returns') and enumerates the exact deliverables: ready texts, resident email, move-in text/email, desk card and move-in insert wording, printable package links, and house rules. That content inventory clearly separates it from thin siblings like partner_get_links or partner_get_stats. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives such as partner_get_links or partner_program_info, and no prerequisites beyond the implicit partner_key. The 'house rules for sharing' passage is guidance about how to use the returned content, not about tool selection. Usage must be inferred from the content list.

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