list_partners

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that a list is retrieved, but says nothing about pagination via limit/offset, scoping by company_id, or response behavior.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, making it easy to scan. However, it is underspecified and sacrifices useful behavioral context for brevity.

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 annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, a one-line description is incomplete. It omits the required company_id scope, pagination semantics, and expected return shape, leaving the agent to infer important invocation details.

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?

The schema describes only company_id and keyword, leaving limit and offset undocumented (50% coverage). The description adds no parameter meaning and does not compensate for the undocumented pagination parameters.

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 '取引先一覧を取得' clearly states a specific action (retrieve a list) and a specific resource (取引先/partners), so the agent can distinguish it from create_partner and other list tools. It does not explicitly call out sibling differentiation, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 verb '一覧を取得' implies this tool is for retrieving a partner list, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. No exclusions are stated, and the agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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