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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no return shape, no pagination, no scoping caveats — only the describe_operation pointer.

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 endpoint path is duplicated verbatim in consecutive sentences, wasting the most prominent position. What remains (operation ID, describe_operation pointer) is boilerplate rather than front-loaded substance.

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 tool with nested object parameters, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies no information an agent could use to construct a call. It provides neither request semantics nor expected results, leaving only a redirect to another tool.

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 0% and both parameters (a free-form 'query' object and an empty 'params' object with additionalProperties=false) are undocumented. The description compensates only by deferring to describe_operation for 'native request schemas', which points at the gap without filling it.

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 only restates the endpoint path 'GET /api/partners/construction' twice, which is a tautology of the title. It never says what resource is returned or what the tool is for, so an agent cannot tell it apart from the many other partners/construction-adjacent siblings.

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 alternatives like find_sites, find_contracts, or execute_read. The single useful hint is that describe_operation provides native request schemas, which implies a prerequisite call, but no usage condition is given.

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