cork_get_partners

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return value type (partner UUIDs), the account-type restriction, and onward usage. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free read behavior, pagination response format, or potential empty results. This is adequate but not rich.

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 succinct sentences deliver the core purpose, return value usage, and access constraint with no filler. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what it lists, who may use it, and what to do with the results. It stops just short of describing the full response envelope or read-only nature, but those are minor gaps.

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 input schema already documents page and page_size with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details; it adds contextual value about how the returned data is used, but not about the parameters themselves.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List partner sub-accounts managed by this distributor') and adds a key scoping behavior: returns UUIDs for use in other tools. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools focused on clients, devices, and integrations.

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 explains why an agent would call this tool (to obtain partner_uuid values for later scoping) and includes a constraint ('Distributor accounts only'). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for non-distributors, but the context is clear enough.

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