mf_list_partners

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the filtering capability but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format looks like (list structure), pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and main capability. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary information. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by explicitly stating it's a list/retrieval operation first.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (partner list structure), how pagination works, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data with multiple records, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to properly use and interpret results.

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 all three parameters (page, per_page, q) with their descriptions. The description mentions filtering ('検索キーワードで絞り込み可能です') which corresponds to the 'q' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('取引先一覧' - partner list), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions filtering capability ('検索キーワードで絞り込み可能です'), which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mf_get_partner or other list tools (mf_list_billings, mf_list_items, mf_list_quotes).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use mf_list_partners versus mf_get_partner (for individual partner details), nor does it provide context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases. The only usage hint is the filtering capability, but this doesn't constitute proper guidance.

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