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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds that results can be filtered by status/country/email plus the underlying endpoint (GET /partners). It says nothing about pagination behaviour or result shape, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering purpose and filters, plus a short endpoint reference. Nothing is wasted, though the endpoint note is marginal 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 list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin: it does not characterize pagination, default page size, or how an empty result should be interpreted. The mention of a non-existent 'country' filter also leaves a small correctness gap.

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%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail, and its filter list ('status, country or email') omits the free-text 'search' parameter and names a 'country' filter that does not exist in 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 and resource ('List the partners (affiliates) in the programme') and names the filter dimensions, so an agent knows this returns existing partners rather than applications. It does not explicitly name the sibling dub_list_partner_applications to disambiguate the two, which keeps it below a 5.

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 phrase 'in the programme' implies this is for already-enrolled partners as opposed to applicants handled by dub_list_partner_applications, but that distinction is left to inference. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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