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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the returned content covers (how the programme works, what partners receive, how to apply), though it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or response shape.

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 tight sentences with no waste: purpose, content scope, and the routing rule are front-loaded and each 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 zero-parameter read-only info tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema required, the description tells the agent everything needed to call it and to pick the right sibling. Nothing material is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema cannot carry semantics and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level guidance is needed or expected for a no-arg retrieval tool.

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 and resource ('Returns details of Clausely's referral partner programme') and enumerates the audience and content covered. It cleanly distinguishes itself from get_white_label_service by naming that sibling and its distinct use case.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when someone wants to refer clients or members directly to Clausely') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative tool ('For behind-the-scenes fulfilment under the partner's own brand, use get_white_label_service instead'). Routing is unambiguous.

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