Get one scenario in full

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals 'Read-only', 'Offline and deterministic unless enrich is set', the live Microsoft Learn fetch consequence, and 'An unknown id returns ok:false with suggestions'. These details enrich the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations and explain the non-idempotent behavior without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Four sentences, tightly packed with information. The first sentence leads with the return value, the second gives usage context, the third names alternatives, and the fourth covers edge cases. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The description covers how to get the id, what content is returned, alternative tools, the enrich side effect, and error handling for unknown ids. An output schema exists, so return shapes are covered. This is complete guidance for correct invocation.

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?

Both parameters have thorough schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds a small reference to discovering valid ids via pc_list_scenarios, but this is already present in the id parameter description. No additional parameter syntax or format details are provided beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the complete verified record for one Partner Center REST operation', enumerating exactly what is included (method, path, auth, headers, shapes, notes, examples, gotchas, link). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by requiring a scenario id and explicitly naming alternative tools for other use cases.

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 gives explicit when-to-use: 'Use this once you know the scenario id', plus how to obtain that id (pc_list_scenarios, pc_plan_*, pc_lookup_error). It also names alternatives: 'prefer pc_generate_call' and 'prefer pc_build_request', covering both inclusion and exclusion guidance.

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