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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the share ledger is pseudonymised to codes and never exposes names or addresses, and the "quote only these numbers" instruction constrains the agent from fabricating or extrapolating figures.

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?

Two sentences, with the returned-fields inventory front-loaded before the quoting constraint. The long comma-list is information-dense rather than padded, though it is closer to a bullet dump than to flowing prose.

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 carries the burden of describing return contents and does so thoroughly, including the earnings-state breakdown and the privacy scoping of the share ledger. It stops short of stating time-range or scoping behaviour and what an empty/unlinked partner returns.

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 single partner_key parameter is well documented there, including the alternative REST bearer-header usage. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 names the resource (a partner's stats) and enumerates its exact contents: status, visits, signups, free months, paying apartments, collected revenue, earnings by state, share ledger and payout history. That enumeration distinguishes it cleanly from siblings such as partner_get_links, partner_payout_link and partner_program_info.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named — an agent is not told whether to call this before or instead of partner_get_kit, partner_program_info or partner_payout_link. "Quote only these numbers" is a downstream constraint on the returned data, not selection guidance.

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