get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_tenant_based_handles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get a list' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'tenant-based handles' represent in practice. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It explains what the tool does at a high level but doesn't provide context about the returned data format, potential errors, or how 'tenant-based handles' fit into the broader integration. For a read operation with no structured metadata, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the parameter situation (none exist).

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 action ('Get a list') and resource ('tenant-based handles from the Datadog Microsoft Teams integration'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_workflows_webhook_handles' or 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_channel', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling tools related to Microsoft Teams integration (e.g., get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_workflows_webhook_handles, get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_channel), but the description doesn't mention any of them or specify contexts where this tool is appropriate versus others.

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