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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are ranked by a published formula (tier, references, certified experts, retention) and tightly scoped to three countries, but says nothing about result shape, paging behaviour, or why results might be missing for a given city/tier combination.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the filter surface. Every clause carries information; the only slight inefficiency is that the ranking-factor parenthetical is dense but still earns its place.

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 read-only search with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and filter axes well enough to call the tool correctly. It stops short of describing what a returned partner record contains, which is the main residual gap.

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 only 57%, so the description has to carry extra weight. It maps several filters to semantics (country, city, tier, app specialism, industry focus) and clarifies that 'app specialism' corresponds to the app parameter, but free-text query and limit behaviour are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (search Odoo implementation partners) and adds geographic scope (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) plus the ranking basis. It never mentions sibling tools like match_partners or get_partner, so an agent gets no explicit demarcation, though the search-and-filter framing is itself distinct.

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 list of filter dimensions implies this is the tool for filtered browsing of the partner directory, which is adequate usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and the very similar sibling match_partners is neither named nor contrasted.

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