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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond them — 'Stores nothing' — and enumerates the categories of content returned. It doesn't describe the return format (prose vs. structured), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the enumerated payload in one sentence, followed by a short action directive and a terse persistence note. The inline list is dense but each item earns its place; only the trailing 'Stores nothing' fragment is slightly abrupt.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by naming the content categories. It is essentially complete; only the response format and any length expectations are unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and no enum or nested semantics exist to explain.

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 verb and resource (returns how the partner program works) and enumerates the actual content: revenue share, eligibility, payout timing, rules, and join steps. Combined with the routing instruction toward applying, an agent can distinguish it from partner_apply, partner_get_kit, or partner_get_stats without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says to 'call it first and explain it to the person before applying,' which gives both ordering and the condition that selects this tool over the apply flow. It does not name the sibling tool directly or say when this tool is unnecessary, so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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