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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the payload shape (four assets, QR as SVG) in the absence of an output schema, but adds nothing about auth requirements, scoping, or behavior for an unclaimed key.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence listing the returned artifacts with zero filler or redundancy. The most important information (what you get back) is stated immediately.

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 rightly enumerates the return payload (share link, typed code, QR SVG, dashboard address), which covers the main gap. It falls short only on the auth/key precondition, which the schema partially handles for REST callers.

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?

One optional-looking parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no meaning to partner_key beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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?

Specific verb (returns) plus four concrete resources: share link, typed code, QR code in SVG, and dashboard address. This clearly separates it from sibling writers like partner_create_sublink or partner_rotate_key, though it never names the alternative tools explicitly.

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 states only what comes back, with no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites (e.g., that a claimed key must exist first), and no indication of when one would call this versus partner_get_kit or partner_program_info.

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