partners_verify_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses batching behavior (Romanian to ANAF in batches, EU to VIES one by one), skipping rules, automatic daily run, return counts, retry semantics for failures, and definition of 'changed'. This is comprehensive behavioral context.

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 dense but well-organized: core action and parameter first, then routing logic, then return values, then automation note. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 tool's complexity (bulk operation with multiple partner types and external registry calls), the description covers all necessary details: scope, batching, exclusions, return values, failure handling, and scheduling. There is no output schema, but the return counts are explicitly listed, so the agent knows what to expect.

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 coverage for parameters is 100%, so the schema already explains both `days` and `companyId`. The description adds the default value for `days` (30) and the meaning of 0 ('everyone'), which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't describe `companyId` beyond what schema says, so a baseline 3 is justified.

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 action ('re-check every client and supplier') with clear scope (missing or older than `days` days) and distinguishes from sibling `partner_verify` (single-partner) by covering all partners. It precisely conveys the tool's purpose.

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 implicitly tells when to use it: for bulk re-checking of partners, contrasting with `partner_verify` (likely single). It also notes exclusions (individuals and non-EU partners are skipped), which helps set expectations but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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