list_partners

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied (e.g., returns all partners). For a list tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation and constraints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List partners') and adds clarifying details ('vendors/ad networks') and functionality ('optional filters') without waste. Every word contributes to understanding, making it appropriately sized and well-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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of the list, fields included), error conditions, or behavioral aspects like pagination. For a list tool, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic filtering.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting 'optional filters,' but doesn't provide additional context like default behaviors (e.g., 'status' defaults to 'running') or interactions between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the parameter documentation.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('partners'), with additional clarification about what partners are ('vendors/ad networks'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling 'get_partner' by indicating it lists multiple partners rather than retrieving a single one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_partner_categories' beyond the resource name.

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 through 'optional filters,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving partners with specific criteria. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_partner' (for single partner) or 'list_partner_categories' (for categories), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks comparative direction.

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