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

The annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds useful scope context: the report is weekly, covers 24 regions, and includes new, retired, and biggest list-price moves. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or pagination, but the output schema and annotations reduce the need for that.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and report contents. Every phrase earns its place and no extraneous detail is included.

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 simple read-only report tool with a full output schema, complete parameter documentation, and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains what the report contains but leaves ambiguous when an agent should select it over sibling tools that also relate to Azure VM sizes and costs.

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 `weeks` parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter syntax or default-info beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 report resource and its contents: new Azure VM sizes, retired sizes, and biggest list-price moves across 24 regions. It clearly distinguishes this reporting tool from cost-estimation and VM-size lookup siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 weekly-report framing implies the tool is used for recurring price-change tracking, and the schema's `weeks` parameter supports that by allowing retrieval of prior reports. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against siblings like estimate_vm_cost or find_vm_sizes.

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