get_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral value by enumerating the categories of facts returned (public_endpoint values, network rules, private endpoints, auth settings, TLS, per-fact sources, unknowns), which tells the agent what 'verdict' entails beyond a simple boolean.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the first sentence declares the verdict, the second enumerates returned fields. The long resource enumeration is slightly noisy but justified as scope disclosure.

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?

No output schema, so the description's field enumeration is useful. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no usage guidance, an agent still cannot confidently call the tool correctly on the first attempt without probing 'target' semantics.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'target' is never explained in the description. An agent cannot tell whether target is a resource ID, a name, an FQDN, or an ARM path. The resource-type list hints at supported targets but doesn't clarify the expected format.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Network access verdict for one resource' with an enumerated list of supported resource types. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like who_has_access or list_public_exposure.

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?

Purpose is implied by the resource list and the 'access verdict' framing, but the description never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as who_has_access (identity-level) or list_public_exposure (fleet-level). No exclusions or routing guidance.

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