pack_partenaire

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

The description discloses that it is a free catalogue with no API requirement and provides a REST endpoint. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but the nature of a catalogue and the GET method imply no side effects, which is sufficient given the absence of annotations.

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 concise, containing all relevant information in a single sentence, though the leading 'WHEN' is stylistically unusual. It is well-structured with a clear trigger, definition, and endpoint.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity with no parameters or output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to know when and how to use it. It clearly differentiates from the many sibling tools.

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 schema has no parameters, and the description mentions '0 units' and 'no API', which is consistent. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description provides adequate context.

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 clearly states that the tool provides a catalogue of Partner Portal apps mapped to MCP tools, with an explicit verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a discovery/catalogue endpoint.

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?

It explicitly says to call it first when helping an artisan or BTP company to know what the Partner Portal covers, giving a clear trigger condition. It also notes that no API key is required, which adds usage context.

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