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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating exactly what the returned details cover: how the programme works, what partners receive, and how to apply. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the subject and audience, and the second explains both content coverage and appropriate use cases. Every clause contributes value.

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 read-only, zero-parameter informational tool, this description is complete. It identifies the programme, audience, content covered, and when to invoke it. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the description already summarizes the expected information domains.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the fixed content of the response rather than inputs.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns details of Clausely's referral partner programme.' It identifies the target audience and the topics covered, making it immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_compliance_pack or get_blog_article.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when someone asks about white-label compliance documentation, reselling compliance packs, or partnering...' This is strong contextual guidance. It does not name alternative tools or list exclusions, so it stops just short of a top score.

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