pc_get_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the tool returns a field dictionary but omits details like authorization requirements, data source, or whether it accesses external systems. The behavior about omitting the name parameter is mentioned but ambiguous (list all resources vs. all fields).

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 two short sentences that front-load the purpose and include a clear instruction. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input behavior and the nature of the output (field names, types, notes). It could be more explicit about the output structure, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it 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?

The description adds meaning to the sole 'name' parameter by stating 'Omit name to list all,' implying it specifies a resource. However, it does not enumerate valid values (though listed in the description) or explain the parameter's format. With 0% schema coverage, this provides moderate value.

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 a field dictionary for specific Partner Center resources (Customer, Subscription, Order, Invoice, CartLineItem), including field names, types, and notes. The verb 'get' and resource 'resource' are clarified by the description, and it distinguishes from siblings like pc_get_enums or pc_get_reference by focusing on field definitions.

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 the tool should be used when one needs field details for a resource, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like pc_search_docs or pc_get_enums. No 'when not to use' information is provided.

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