Get authentication guidance

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

The description goes beyond annotations by adding 'offline', 'deterministic', and 'issues no tokens, contacts no identity provider, avoids handling secrets', giving a precise safety profile. No contradictions with the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loading the core purpose, then usage guidance, then behavioral caveats. Every sentence contributes distinct value with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists to explain return values, and annotations cover safety. The description adds the missing pieces: when to use it, what it covers, and that it is offline and side-effect-free. It also provides clear alternatives, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed enum descriptions for both cloud and authType. The description merely maps these to domain terms ('token flavour', 'national cloud'), adding no syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Return') and clear resource (authentication guidance for Partner Center), scoped by token flavour and national cloud. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming pc_check_auth and pc_decode_error.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this when deciding or setting up how to get a token') and provides concrete alternatives for other scenarios ('To check whether existing code already uses a retired pattern, use pc_check_auth instead; to decode a 401/403 you already hit, use pc_decode_error').

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