Map archived SDK calls to REST

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is 'read-only, offline, deterministic pattern matching', the snippet is not executed, and nothing is rewritten in place. It also discloses the return contract — always ok:true, with empty `matches` and `unmatched:true` when nothing matches. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by workflow and behavioral guarantees. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the title beyond a natural subject line. It is information-dense but still easy to scan.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers why to use it, how to chain it with other tools, what it does and does not modify, and what the empty-result response looks like. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the outcome.

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 input schema is 100% covered, including details like case-insensitive matching and multiple calls per snippet, so the tool description does not need to add parameter-specific semantics. It does include 'snippet' and 'each one', but those largely repeat what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a specific action — 'Find the archived Partner Center .NET SDK calls in a snippet and map each one to the current REST scenario' — clearly identifying the resource and the transformation. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming pc_check_auth and pc_generate_call as complementary steps, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to port code off the SDK') and describes a workflow with pc_check_auth and pc_generate_call. The alternative tools are named, so an agent can decide whether to run this tool or a sibling. This is exactly the kind of guidance needed for correct tool selection.

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