partner_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the scope that only ingress=partner entries are returned, which is genuinely useful filtering context. It says nothing about return shape, ordering, pagination, or why the extra architectural notes matter, so it adds modest value over the 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?

The first sentence is front-loaded and efficient. The following two sentences ('Agent-facing northbound is still MCP only. Apps do not implement MCP.') are tangential architecture commentary that does not clearly help invoke this tool, adding noise.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it lists and the filter scope. The dangling sentences about MCP northbound and apps add confusion without completing the picture of what the caller gets back. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The '(ingress=partner)' note functions as an implicit fixed filter, which is helpful context even if no parameter exists.

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 (list southbound Partner connections) and pins scope via the '(ingress=partner)' qualifier. It clearly names the resource, though it never names a sibling like mcp_list to sharpen the contrast. The trailing sentences about northbound/MCP/apps describe the surrounding architecture rather than this tool's action.

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 contrast between 'southbound Partner connections' and 'northbound MCP' implies this tool covers a different domain than the mcp_* siblings, giving indirect usage context. However, it never states explicitly when to use this versus mcp_list or any alternative. Usage 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.