Get alternative partners

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating it lists mappings; it does not disclose pagination, filtering behavior, or response format. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and front-loads the core purpose, but it is so brief that it under-specifies, though that is more a completeness issue than a structure issue.

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 low schema coverage, lack of output schema, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, differentiate from similar tools, or describe return data. An agent would be left guessing on how to use this tool effectively.

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 0% and the description provides zero explanation of the five parameters (top, skip, filter, select, orderby). Since the schema does not document them, the description must compensate, and it fails to do so. This is a significant gap for an agent needing to construct correct calls.

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 ('List') and resource ('alternative partner mappings') with a clear definition of the mapping (sender system + interface → partnerID). It is unambiguous about what it returns, but it does not distinguish this from siblings like get_partners or get_message_mappings, so it loses one point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would direct an agent to choose this over sibling tools like get_partners or get_message_mappings.

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