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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond them: the returned fields (clicks, conversions, revenue, commission in cents) and 'counts covers every tab', which tells the agent counts are tab-independent. Doesn't address pagination behavior.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the scope definition comes first, then tab semantics, then the read-only note. Every clause carries information, though the run-on construction packs three partner categories into one sentence, slightly at the cost of scannability.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return fields and their units (cents) plus tab semantics. It covers the enum and the general shape of the response. Missing only pagination/limit behavior and the app_id defaulting nuance.

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 75%, so tab, limit, and app_id already carry descriptions. The description adds real meaning on the enum: it glosses 'nofollow' as sites linking without passing authority and clarifies 'counts covers every tab'. It says nothing about limit/offset, but those are schema-documented.

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 (get) and resource (partners), and crucially defines the composite scope: creators in live/paid deals, featuring sites, and the affiliate roster. This effectively distinguishes it from list_creators/list_deals/get_program without naming them. The generic verb 'get' and lack of sibling naming keep it from a 5.

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 implied via 'as the Partners page shows it' and the tab breakdown, letting an agent infer this is the aggregate partners view. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to a sibling for a narrower need (e.g. per-creator or per-site lookups).

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