Retrieve a partner's links.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no mention of the error thrown when neither ID is supplied, no pagination, ordering, or return-shape notes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the lookup keys are stated immediately. It is efficient, though arguably thin given the tool's optional-parameter and error-handling nuance.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally cover the return shape and the failure mode when neither identifier is provided; the schema covers the latter but the description is silent on results. For a read-only lookup with full annotation and schema coverage, this is adequate but not complete.

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 including partnerId precedence over tenantId and the error condition. The description's 'partner ID or tenant ID' phrasing adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, and it omits the 'account' parameter entirely, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('a partner's links'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools like list_links, create_partner_link, or upsert_partner_link, which an agent must infer on its own.

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 phrase 'by their partner ID or tenant ID' hints at the required inputs, but there is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_links, list_partners, or retrieve_partner_analytics, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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