search_nsg_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description does add genuinely useful matching semantics (port range/'*', CIDR overlap, service tags, 'internet' expansion) which is behavior beyond the annotations. It says nothing about pagination or the meaning of the limit/default cap, which matters for an estate-wide search.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence scope statement followed by a compact field glossary; every line carries matching semantics. Slightly list-like but appropriately sized for eight undocumented parameters.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description is functionally adequate but incomplete: it omits what the result set contains beyond 'what each NSG is attached to', never explains limit/default-200 truncation or include_default, and doesn't say whether results are filtered or full-fidelity. Those omissions could cause a caller to under- or over-interpret a capped result set.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden and does so well for six of them, defining exact value semantics (port, source/destination match modes, access, direction, protocol enumerated values). limit and include_default receive no explanation, which is a real gap but does not erase the strong compensation on the filter parameters.

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 (Search) and resource (NSG rules) plus an unusual scope qualifier: the whole estate, with attachment context. That scope distinguishes it from the narrower sibling nsg_rules_for, but the description never names that or any other alternative, so differentiation is only implicit.

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 phrase 'across the whole estate' implies the estate-wide query context and the filter list implies when each filter applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of siblings like nsg_rules_for or firewall_rules. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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