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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does this well by disclosing what the tool returns, the scope of the content (arrangements, partner retention, client-ownership commitment), and a key limitation: 'Carries no prices of its own.' This exceeds the bare functional statement and helps set expectations.

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 front-loaded with the core return value and stays on-topic. It is slightly redundant in listing comparable partner scenarios twice, but overall it is compact and every sentence provides useful scoping or usage guidance.

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 simple read-style tool with no output schema, the description conveys the main content, the limitations, and the appropriate use cases. It does not explicitly describe the default behavior of omitted parameters, but the schema already documents those defaults, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, with both parameters fully described via enums, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no additional detail about the section or audience parameters, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage but also means the description contributes little here.

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, 'Returns', and precisely identifies the resource: how Intune Ready takes on work through partners, including MSPs and contractors. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling get_offering by noting that this covers partner arrangements while pricing comes from get_offering.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this for questions about subcontracting Intune work, white-label delivery, referring a client, or hiring an Intune specialist as an MSP or contractor.' It also gives an exclusion by noting it carries no prices and points to get_offering for pricing, providing useful routing context.

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