List Partner Fees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that it takes no arguments and returns a sanitized list of partner_fees, though it does not elaborate on pagination or what 'sanitized' removes.

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 two short sentences and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful information: what is listed and that no arguments are required.

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, no-argument list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is that 'sanitized list' is not explained, but the core behavior is clear enough for invocation.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating 'No arguments,' which matches the empty input 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: it lists the tenant's partner fee schedules, and it clarifies that these are spread/fixed fees applied on payins and payouts. This distinguishes it from sibling operations such as get_partner_fee, create_partner_fee, and delete_partner_fee.

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 description implies usage by stating it lists partner fee schedules and takes no arguments, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus ashar_get_partner_fee or ashar_get_fee_rates. There are no exclusions or routing hints to alternatives.

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