workers_partner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states that 'rates is a constants dict — do not invent percents if empty,' which warns against a specific misuse. This adds behavioral guidance, though it does not cover safety, idempotency, or error conditions.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, the first sentence is a list of nouns rather than a complete sentence, which could be more structured.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately hints at the return contents (terms, URLs, ref_link, rates). It could be more explicit about the tool's side effects or return format, but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 explicitly lists the data provided by the tool: platform partner terms, catalog/builder/community URLs, ref_link, and a rates constants dict. It also distinguishes itself from the worker-bot /ref product. However, it lacks an action verb (e.g., 'retrieve') which slightly reduces clarity.

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 only usage guidance is 'Not the worker-bot /ref product,' which indicates an exclusion but does not explain when to prefer this tool over siblings like workers_list or workers_get. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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