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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. "Return" and "authenticated user" imply a read-only, auth-required operation, but the description says nothing about permissions needed, rate limits, or whether partner data is scoped to the caller. It adds some behavioral context (auth binding) but leaves key traits unstated.

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 short sentences with the primary capability front-loaded, followed by sequencing and an alternative-tool pointer. No filler, though the phrasings are slightly clipped.

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 zero-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description only sketches the return payload at a high level; "partner context" and "user list for partners" are not concrete enough for an agent to know what shape of data to expect. It is minimally viable but does not fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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?

The schema defines zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and no ambiguity to resolve. This is the baseline for a no-argument tool and the description correctly implies no input is needed.

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 pairs a clear verb ("Return") with specific outputs: authenticated user scope, partner context, and the user list for partners. It is distinguishable from retrieval siblings like FindUser or PartnerSummary, though "partner context" remains vague about exactly what data is included.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing ("Call after RecordUserQuestion") and routes tool-selection questions to the sibling GetToolGuide. That is clear usage context, but it never states when this tool should NOT be used or how it differs from the user/partner lookup siblings.

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