Get API-wide reference facts

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: 'offline' and 'deterministic', plus the insight that the payload shape differs per topic. No contradiction with 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 tight and front-loaded, using a single sentence for the core purpose followed by usage and a behavioral note. No wasted words, every sentence 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?

Given the simple one-parameter interface and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's scope. It explains the topic categories, usage boundaries, and behavioral traits, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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, so baseline is 3. The description adds the useful note that the payload shape differs per topic, which is not in the schema, justifying a 4.

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 explicitly states the tool returns cross-cutting facts (base URLs, headers, versioning, sandbox, rate limits, national clouds), naming the verb 'Return' and the resource. It distinguishes from siblings by naming pc_get_scenario and pc_auth_guidance as alternatives for specific endpoint and auth topics.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for questions about the API as a whole' and directly names alternatives for specific endpoints (pc_get_scenario) and authentication (pc_auth_guidance). This makes the when-to-use decision unambiguous.

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