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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral nuance: the meanings of rewardsVested, rewardsClearing, and rewardsVoided, the 7-day vesting window, and the empty result for non-channel partners. It also warns that status counts are not money, which helps the agent interpret output correctly.

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?

The description is dense but well organized: resource first, then field details, reward-state explanations, usage triggers, and product-language caveat. Every sentence contributes distinct information, and the key distinctions are front-loaded.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned, what the statuses mean, when to call the tool, and what happens for non-partners. That is sufficient for an agent to invoke it and interpret results correctly.

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% for the single optional companyId parameter, so the schema already provides the necessary semantics. The description does not add extra meaning to that parameter, but given full schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get YOUR channel partner stats') and enumerates exactly what is included: share URL, rev-share terms, referral counts by status, and reward states. It also clarifies product language ('Partner (not affiliate)'), which disambiguates it from other partner-related tools.

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 explicitly states when to use it: when the operator asks how many people came through their link, partner performance, or commission terms. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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