List partners

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the default result ordering ('newest first') and the scope of the search ('over the partner name'). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds the two supported features. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity read-only list tool with 100% parameter documentation and the safety profile carried by annotations, the description is largely sufficient. Minor gaps remain: the return shape and pagination metadata are not described (no output schema exists), and no explicit guidance distinguishes this from billingo_get_partner.

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 independently documents page, query, and per_page with defaults. The description's mention of 'paging and a free-text search over the partner name' largely restates the schema's query description and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Lists partners (customers), newest first.' The parenthetical clarifies the domain term, and the ordering detail adds precision. As a plural list operation it is readily distinguishable from the single-resource sibling billingo_get_partner and from list tools on other resources like billingo_list_products or billingo_list_documents.

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 'Lists partners' plus the paging and free-text search capabilities, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not route single-partner lookups to billingo_get_partner or mention any exclusions, so usage context is left to inference.

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