Map archived SDK calls to REST

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses offline deterministic behavior, that the snippet is not executed, and that nothing is rewritten in place. It also specifies the always-success return convention ('Always returns ok:true; when nothing matched, `matches` is empty and `unmatched` is true'). No contradictions 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 compact yet dense: purpose, usage, behavior, and return semantics are each addressed in a few sentences with no filler. The front-loaded verb and resource make the intent immediately clear.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description still covers necessary context: when to use, how it behaves (read-only, offline), what it returns, and how to chain it with other tools. No major gaps remain for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema's param description already explains input format, case-insensitivity, and multiple calls. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Find ... map') and resource ('archived Partner Center .NET SDK calls') with a clear outcome ('current REST scenario that replaces it, with migration notes'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly framing it as a porting tool for the archived SDK.

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 context ('Use this to port code off the SDK') and names companion tools with instructions: 'Run pc_check_auth alongside it ... then pass each returned scenario id to pc_generate_call'. This clearly situates it among alternatives.

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