azure_query_costs

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. It mentions that Cost Management credentials are required and implies a read operation, but it does not disclose response format, default grouping, granularity, cost-type semantics, pagination, or other runtime 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 short and free of filler, and the credential requirement is relevant. However, for a 7-parameter tool with sparse schema documentation, this brevity reads more like under-specification than well-balanced 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 number of parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and several similar sibling tools, the description leaves major gaps: how timeframes work, what grouping options mean, what the response looks like, and when to prefer another tool. It is only a starting point.

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 only 29%, and the description itself does not explain timeframe, groupBy, costType, granularity, or response_format. Only startDate and endDate have schema descriptions, so most parameters remain semantically ambiguous and the description does nothing to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('actual Azure subscription spend'), clearly establishing that this tool reads spend data rather than prices, forecasts, or budgets. It does not explicitly differentiate from azure_query_costs_by_resource, but the wording is sufficient to identify the core purpose.

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 closely related siblings such as azure_query_costs_by_resource, azure_get_cost_forecast, or azure_list_budgets. The word 'actual' hints at real spend versus forecasts or estimates, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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