List partners

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is a restatement rather than new information. The genuinely additive part is the domain model — each side keeps its own library but can see the other's — which tells the agent what the relationship means. No mention of pagination, latency, or permission requirements.

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?

Three short blocks — purpose, definition, return shape — with the scope stated first. Minor waste in the redundant 'Read-only.' sentence and in restating the return shape when an output schema already exists, but nothing is confusing or buried.

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 zero-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, this is close to sufficient: the agent learns the semantics of a 'partner' and that both directions are returned. The enumerated return fields duplicate the output schema and could be dropped, but their presence does no harm to call correctness.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing parameter-level the description could add or omit. The absence of parameters is consistent with the description framing this as a whole-account listing.

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 first sentence states the resource and both directions of the relationship ('who shares their library with this account, and who this account shares with'), which is more precise than the bare name. It does not explicitly name the write-side siblings (create_partner, update_partner, remove_partner), so a small amount of sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 what partner sharing is, which implicitly frames when to reach for this tool, and 'Read-only' signals it is a safe inspection call. There is no explicit 'use this when…' routing against create_partner or update_partner, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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