Get partners

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds only the basic facts that it lists all Partner Directory partners, but it does not disclose query semantics such as pagination defaults, result size, or whether filter/select change how many entries are returned. Given the annotation carries the main safety context, a middle score is fair.

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 compact sentence that leads with the core action and resource. The parenthetical adds useful specificity without introducing redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a five-parameter endpoint with no output schema and no parameter documentation. The description only says 'list all', but does not clarify whether the query options are supported for pagination/filtering, what the response shape is, or whether 'all' means an unrestricted listing or a configured page size. More explanation is needed for an agent to invoke this tool correctly beyond sending empty arguments.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain top, skip, filter, select, or orderby beyond their self-evident parameter names. There is no mention of supported filter syntax, selectable fields, ordering capabilities, or interdependencies between these parameters, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Partner Directory partners') plus a clarifying parenthetical ('trading partner routing entries') that makes the tool's target clear. It is distinguishable from the sibling get_alternative_partners, so an agent can understand what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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 instead of sibling search or get_* alternatives, nor any note about the intended default use case. The description does not mention whether this is the canonical listing endpoint or when a caller should prefer a more filtered search tool.

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