List deprecations and deadlines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is 'offline, deterministic — sourced from the bundled pack' and thus 'only as current as the pack's last refresh rather than a live feed.' This goes beyond annotations and helps set accurate expectations about data freshness.

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 comprehensive but every sentence earns its place: it lists content, states usage, names an alternative, and discloses data-source characteristics. It is front-loaded with the tool's core function and does not include filler or redundant wording.

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 output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The tool has only one optional parameter, and the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and behavioral limitations. It is complete for a list-oriented tool with strong annotations.

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 description covers the status parameter fully (enum values and 'Omit to get every item'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to given the schema's 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Partner Center API deprecations and retirement deadlines'), enumerates concrete examples, and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing pc_check_auth for code-level checks. This clearly communicates what the tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('before committing to an endpoint or auth mechanism', 'to explain why something that used to work has stopped') and points to an alternative (pc_check_auth) for specific code checks. This is strong usage guidance with clear context and exclusions.

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