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

Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by decoding the status fields an agent will see (publishedRevisionId set = live, hasUnpublishedChanges = draft edits not live). With no output schema, this return-semantics context is the main behavioral contribution.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and definition before the field semantics and pagination note. Tight overall, though the pagination clause largely echoes the schema defaults.

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-only, three-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the needed domain framing (what a partial is, what the status fields mean). Only the ordering/filtering behavior and the full shape of returned records are left implicit.

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%, so limit, offset, and projectId are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the limit ceiling and that offset pages, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"List the partials ... in a project" is a specific verb plus resource, and the parenthetical defines what a partial is (reusable headers/footers), which an agent may not know. It does not contrast itself with get_partial_content or list_pages, so the sibling distinction must be inferred.

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?

Usage is implied: enumerate partials for a given projectId. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to get_partial_content for fetching a single partial's body, which is the most likely confusion given the sibling set.

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