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 nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, default page size, or total-count semantics despite page/pageSize params. It also cites a 'country' filter that does not exist as a parameter, a minor inaccuracy against the schema.

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, zero waste, with the resource and filter dimensions front-loaded before the endpoint mapping. Nothing is padded.

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 five-parameter, no-required-params listing tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is thin: pagination defaults and the distinction from dub_list_partner_applications are left unexplained, though the core operation is adequately conveyed.

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 the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the filter intent (status/email) but adds no semantics beyond the schema, and its mention of 'country' does not correspond to any actual parameter.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'List the partners (affiliates) in the programme', and it names the filter dimensions. However, it does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling dub_list_partner_applications, which an agent could easily confuse with partner listing.

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?

'by status, country or email' implies a filtered listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the confusable sibling dub_list_partner_applications, and no statement of preconditions. Usage is only implied.

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