pc_auth_guidance

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

The description indicates the tool is informative, providing guidance with deprecation and MFA notes. As there are no annotations, the description sufficiently conveys that it is a read-only knowledge retrieval tool with no side effects.

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 sentence of 14 words, efficiently conveying essential information without redundancy. Every element (auth types, clouds, deprecation, MFA) adds value.

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 guidance tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool provides. It could be improved by noting the output format, but overall, it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 description adds context by mentioning 'app-only or app+user' and 'per national cloud', which partially explains the two parameters. However, it does not detail the enum values or the purpose of the parameters beyond these mentions, failing to fully compensate for the 0% schema description 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 precisely states the tool's function: providing current authentication guidance for Partner Center, specifying auth types (app-only, app+user) and national cloud options. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like pc_check_auth, which likely checks authentication status.

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 implies usage for obtaining authentication guidance but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pc_check_auth or pc_diagnose. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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