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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description needn't repeat that. It adds no behavioral context of its own — no pagination, aggregation limits, default time window, or rate-limit notes — and the trailing 'Dub: GET /partners/analytics' merely restates the endpoint already implied by the tool name.

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 short sentences with the metric list front-loaded; nothing is padded. The 'Dub: GET /partners/analytics' clause is mild redundancy against the name and title but costs little.

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, so the description should ideally describe the shape of the response beyond naming metric categories; it partially does this but says nothing about time-range defaults, required pairing of start/end, or how grouping changes the result.

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 description coverage is 100% and the interval enum is self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'per partner' phrasing only loosely gestures at partnerId/groupBy and adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules (e.g. groupBy=timeseries vs top_partners) 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get analytics for the partner programme') and enumerates the metrics returned (clicks, leads, sales, revenue). An agent can see this scopes to partners rather than links, but the description never explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling dub_get_analytics.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With 'dub_get_analytics' present as a sibling, the agent gets no rule for choosing between partner-scoped and general analytics; the choice must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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