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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only an example slug value; with the behavioral bar lowered by annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. The inline example is mildly useful for illustrating slug format but borders on redundant given the schema's own example 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the required single param is covered. It is complete enough for a simple read-only lookup, with only the missing not-found / multiple-match behavior as a gap.

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% and the single parameter is documented as the slug or name. The description restates the same 'by slug or name' semantics without adding format, fallback, or matching behavior (e.g., what happens on ambiguity or no match), so it does not exceed 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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'Returns one listing from the ERP partner directory.' The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the list_erp_partners sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.

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 only implied: the singular 'one listing' suggests this is the single-record lookup versus the sibling list. There is no explicit when-to-use, no named alternative, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the slug can be sourced from list_erp_partners).

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