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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses return fields and implies a read-only operation by using 'Get information' and referencing the authenticated account. It doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness, but the nature of the tool and return list make this clear.

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 well-structured with a summary, usage scenarios, return fields, and an example. Every section is concise and serves a purpose, with no filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists all key return fields explicitly. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. Given the low complexity (0 params, simple read), this is complete.

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 0 parameters, which per rubric gives a baseline of 4. The description correctly shows the tool takes no input, so no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 explicitly states 'Get information about the authenticated partner account', identifying the specific verb and resource. The 'RETURNS' section further clarifies the scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_billing_status or get_device.

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?

A dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section lists concrete scenarios such as checking partner status and verifying API key. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it misses full marks.

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