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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that defaults are not set, that the record persists until edited, and that each call needs user confirmation (which can be toggled), plus the API-key requirement. The 'It reaches no one' followed by 'Reaches other people' phrasing is confusing and slightly self-contradictory, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the middle clauses ('It reaches no one...', the confirmation toggle, the reach-other-people warning) are repetitive and slightly contradictory, blunting a clean one-liner.

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 4-param create tool with no output schema, the description covers persistence, side effects, confirmation semantics and auth. It is nearly complete, with only the confusing reach-others wording left unresolved.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters; the description restating name/type/business ID/email adds little. It also mentions an 'address' field that does not exist in the schema, which is mildly misleading.

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 verb (add/create) and resource (partner = customer, supplier or person) and the scope (the register). It clearly differentiates from the sibling procountor_list_partners by being the write-side counterpart.

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?

Implies usage (add partners that lack default products/accounts/dimensions) but never states explicitly when to reach for this versus alternatives, nor any preconditions for choosing customer vs supplier vs person. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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