Get one scenario in full

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds substantial behavior: 'Read-only. Offline and deterministic unless `enrich` is set...' and the unknown-id behavior returning ok:false with suggestions. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and does not contradict them.

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 dense paragraph with no filler words. Every sentence contributes critical information: return contents, usage timing, alternative tools, behavioral caveats, and error handling. The structure front-loads the purpose and then supplies necessary context.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary contextual aspects: what the tool returns, when to use it, how to get the id, alternative tools, offline/deterministic behavior, enrich side effects, and error response shape. Nothing essential is missing.

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% and both parameters are already described in detail in the schema. The description reinforces the id lookup and enrich effects but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score for high 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the complete verified record for one Partner Center REST operation' and enumerates the exact contents (method, path, auth type, headers, request/response shapes, examples, gotchas, doc link). It clearly differentiates from siblings like pc_list_scenarios and pc_generate_call.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('once you know the scenario id') and names the exact sources for the id. It also gives explicit alternatives: 'For runnable code in a specific language prefer pc_generate_call; for a request body skeleton prefer pc_build_request.'

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