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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state that it doesn't modify data, what happens on no results, or whether pagination is supported. The scope listing is useful but not a substitute for behavioral transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and zero filler. The second sentence efficiently enumerates coverage areas without redundancy.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential intent and scope. However, it omits any mention of the return format (e.g., list of definitions with related terms) or pagination behavior, which an agent might need to interpret results correctly. It's adequate but not complete.

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% for both 'query' and 'limit', so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter syntax, defaults, or edge cases, but it doesn't need to—the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (search) and resource (partnership glossary), and elaborates on scope by naming covered topics (commissions, attribution, six partnership types, flywheel stages). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on definitions and relationships rather than listing types or playbooks, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_partnership_types or get_playbook. It doesn't mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling names alone.

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