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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output does not include price (fixed-price like direct) and describes what content stays with the partner (client, brand, out-of-scope items). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a generic 'get' operation, even though side effects and auth are not mentioned (low-risk for a read tool).

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 longer than needed and contains marketing-heavy phrasing ('they would rather not own') that does not aid tool selection. The key facts (partner types, coverage, no price, usage scenarios) could be expressed in two tight sentences. It is still structured with purpose first, but the wordiness hurts.

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?

The tool has two optional enum parameters and no output schema. The description says what content is covered (arrangements, partner ownership, FAQ) but does not clarify what 'section' values return or the response format. An agent may not know the difference between 'summary' and 'all' sections, leaving ambiguity for complete understanding.

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 schema already covers both parameters with 100% descriptions and enums, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'MSPs and contractors' and 'FAQ for each audience' loosely maps to the audience and section parameters, but does not explain the enum values or how they affect the response. It adds marginal semantic value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides information about how IIS Rescue works with MSPs and independent IT contractors, covering arrangements, partner ownership, and FAQs. It distinguishes the partner-channel topic from sibling tools like get_faq by focusing on the cooperative model, though it never names a specific sibling.

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 final sentence explicitly lists use cases: white-label delivery, subcontracting, referring a legacy Windows Server migration, and whether IIS Rescue works with MSPs or contractors. This gives clear direction for when to invoke the tool, though alternative tools are not named and no exclusionary guidance is provided.

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