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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds that the response is pitched per audience and includes next-step routes (demo, partner interest), which is useful context, but it says nothing about localization behavior via the lang parameter or the shape of the returned content.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the audience scope arrives before the call-to-action clause. It reads slightly like marketing copy rather than a tool contract, but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to establish what content is returned and for whom, which it does. The remaining gap is a clear boundary against get_overview and get_access_and_pricing, which would be the difference between a 4 and a 5.

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 coverage is 100% with enums for both parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a 3 is the baseline. The description's audience list (coaches and therapists, organisations, research partners, investors) maps onto the enum values but blurs 'professionals' into coaches/therapists, and it never mentions that content language is selectable.

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 conveys that the tool returns audience-targeted content about what Holos33 offers plus next-step calls to action (demo, partner interest). However it is phrased as content copy rather than stating a verb+resource ('returns partner/offering information for a given audience'), and the name 'get_partner_info' is narrower than the four audiences covered, so the purpose is only loosely pinned down.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_overview, get_access_and_pricing, get_faq, or get_page, even though these overlap substantially with 'what Holos33 offers'. The only implied guidance is the audience dimension, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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