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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the authorization/scoping behavior (partners are scoped to their own data, admins must supply partnerId), which is the key operational trait, but it omits whether this is a pure read, any rate limits, or result freshness.

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 tight sentences with zero waste, front-loading the returned metrics before the access-scope rule. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably covers what the summary contains and the calling scope. It stops short of describing return shape or default behavior, but for a dashboard summary tool it is largely sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents month, intentId, and partnerId including the 'admins only; partners use own scope' note. The description's partnerId mention merely restates the schema, adding no new semantics.

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?

States a specific resource (partner dashboard/summary) and enumerates exactly what it returns: label count, revenue, open tickets, unpaid invoices. The 'partner dashboard' framing plus the explicit metrics set it apart from generic siblings like GetAnalytics and SummarizeUsageRecords, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

Provides role-based scope context ('Partners see own data; admins pass partnerId') that hints at who should call it, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no exclusions against the many sibling reporting/invoice tools.

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