pc_lookup_error

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only lookup operation without side effects. However, it does not disclose behavior when no parameters are provided (both are optional in schema), required permissions, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and input methods.

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 simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description provides enough context for the agent to understand the core function. It hints at the output content (meaning, causes, remediation). However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, and parameter interaction, which would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It only states lookup 'by error code or HTTP status', which maps to the two parameters but does not explain their formats, expected values, or if both can be used together. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb 'look up' and identifies the resource as 'Partner Center REST error'. It clearly specifies two lookup methods (by error code or HTTP status) and the information provided (meaning, causes, remediation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pc_auth_guidance or pc_diagnose, which have different purposes.

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 usage when the agent has a Partner Center REST error code or HTTP status, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, so the context is sufficient for an informed choice.

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