get_partner_distribution

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals role-based visibility: partners see only their share, owners see the full split. This is important behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 very concise—four short sentences—with the main purpose stated first. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavior, example queries, and prerequisite call to action.

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 output schema and simple annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, behavioral nuance, and a prerequisite. It does not describe the output structure, but the term 'distribution summary' implies a breakdown, which is sufficient.

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 already provides descriptions for all parameters with 100% coverage. The description only reiterates that entity_id should come from list_entities, which is already in the schema description. No additional parameter meaning is added.

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 tool returns a profit distribution summary for a business entity, specifying how net profit is split between partners. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pnl or get_cash_flow which deal with different financial aspects.

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 provides example user queries that trigger this tool ('how much do I take home', etc.) and advises to call list_entities first for the entity_id. It does not explicitly exclude when not to use or compare with alternatives, but the examples give clear usage context.

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