partners_verify_all

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing routing logic (ANAF batches of 100, VIES one-by-one), skip rules (individuals and non-EU partners), failure handling (registry failures are retried by the daily job), and that snapshots are compared and may change — consistent with readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. It also documents the returned counts, including `since`, which the annotations cannot supply.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences: scope, routing behavior, return shape, then automation context. Each sentence carries distinct operational information with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 batched, externally-calling tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: which parties are covered or skipped, how the call is distributed, what happens on failure, and the shape of the result counts. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 already documents both `days` and `companyId` fully. The description's `days` parenthetical only restates the schema default and zero-semantics, and it says nothing at all about `companyId`, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data.

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 (re-check every client and supplier) plus the exact selection scope (last registry check missing or older than `days`). The word 'every' and the batch description make it clearly distinct from the single-partner sibling `partner_verify`, so an agent can pick correctly without opening a 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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: missing or stale checks, `days` default 30, and 0 meaning everyone. It also discloses that the same run happens automatically at 06:40 daily, which tells the agent when calling manually is redundant, but it never names the single-partner alternative or an explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion.

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