pc_whats_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns deprecations with dates and actions, which is sufficient for this read-only tool. No contradictions or hidden behaviors are indicated.

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, well-front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any extraneous words. Every part contributes meaning.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the overall purpose but omits details about the filter parameter and the return format. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a minimally complete description.

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 schema describes one parameter 'status' with enum values, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this filter or explain how to use it. For a single optional parameter, the description should at least note that it can be used to filter by status.

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 clearly states the tool lists Partner Center API deprecations and deadlines with specific topics (MFA enforcement, graph.windows.net retirement, etc.) and provides dates and actions. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pc_search_docs or pc_get_reference.

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 for checking deprecation deadlines but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., pc_get_reference for general info). There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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