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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Check' implies read-only, but the description never states there are no side effects, what credentials are needed, or what happens on failure; it also points to a nonexistent 'partner_id' parameter. This is a meaningful gap for a financial/payout tool.

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?

The core sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the when-to-use/not-to-use block is filler that restates the capability without adding decision value. It is short enough not to be bloated, yet not every sentence 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?

For a simple read tool the description conveys purpose and returned metrics, but it omits the identity-parameter mismatch and provides only tautological usage guidance. An agent cannot reliably know whether to send agent_id or ref_code, and the requiredness is unclear.

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% and documents agent_id/ref_code well, but the description instructs 'Provide partner_id,' which appears nowhere in the schema. This actively misleads an agent and overrides the schema's value, so the baseline 3 is not deserved.

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 first sentence clearly identifies the operation ('check'), the resource ('partner stats'), and the specific output fields ('total conversions and pending payout balance'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like partner_register, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 has explicit 'When to use' and 'When not to use' headings, but the content is circular and generic: 'call partner_stats when the user's request matches this capability' and 'do not call it for unrelated work.' It names no sibling alternative and gives no concrete routing criteria.

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