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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: the verb 'return' implies a read-only lookup languages, and it names output fields. It does not disclose data source, behavior when no partner matches, or whether any external side effects (e.g., affiliate link generation) occur.

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 description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the trigger ('Given a need'), states the action, and names the output elements, making it scannable and efficient.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it defines input, purpose, and required return fields. It doesn't address edge cases like no matching partner, but those are minor for the described scope.

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 schema already covers the single 'category' parameter with 100% coverage and examples. The description's examples ('outbound', 'CRM', 'automation') largely mirror the schema's examplesainer, adding little new semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Description states a specific action: 'return StackSwap's recommended affiliate partner(s)' on a concrete resource ('affiliate partner') with explicit output components ('sign-up URL and positioning'). The 'affiliate partner(s)' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like recommend_stack and suggest_swaps.

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?

'Given a need' signals a clear entry condition and gives example categories, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as recommend_stack for broader stack-level recommendations.

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