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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it requires DEVOPS_ORG_URL + DEVOPS_PAT with Code: Read scope, computes a topological merge order, and detects branch-chain relationships. This gives a fuller picture of what the tool actually does without contradicting the 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 long but well-structured: purpose first, then per-PR behavior, output sections, triggers, and prerequisites. The trigger list is somewhat extensive, but it earns its place by helping an agent recognize the right invocation context. Slightly tighter wording could improve it, but it is not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates what the tool returns: per-PR object table, conflict matrix, dependency graph summary, and ordered merge sequence. It also covers the two core analysis dimensions and the required credentials. Given the tool's complexity, this is a reasonably complete definition, though it could mention behavior on empty or invalid PR sets.

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%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides; it focuses on behavior and output. This matches the baseline of 3 for fully-covered schemas.

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 verb and resource: 'Scan multiple Pull Requests and build a cross-PR dependency graph'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ado_list_prs or ado_analyze_pr_impact by focusing on cross-PR dependency analysis, object conflicts, and merge ordering.

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 provides a Triggers section with concrete natural-language phrases ('PR dependencies', 'ordre de merge des PR', 'conflits entre PR') that tell an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions, but the trigger list gives clear contextual guidance.

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