list_postgres_servers

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about authentication ('via the current Azure credential (az login / managed identity)') and specifies the return fields (server names, ARM resource IDs, FQDNs, subscriptions, locations, engine versions), going beyond 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 two sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second lists return fields. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no redundant information.

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's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: what it lists, the auth scope, and the type of data returned. It is complete for this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantics. The description does not need to explain parameters, and no additional parameter meaning is necessary. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 action and resource: 'List all Azure Database for PostgreSQL Flexible Servers accessible via the current Azure credential.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_databases and list_tables, which operate at different levels.

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 the tool is for discovering accessible PostgreSQL servers but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. No when-not or alternative tool guidance is provided, so usage is inferred from the action itself.

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