get_ca_policies

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

Annotations already provide safety hints (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds valuable behavioral context: requirement for m365Proxy service binding, unprovisioned response, and representative flag for sample data, enhancing transparency beyond 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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, noting a prerequisite, and explaining a response nuance. No unnecessary words.

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 simple read tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and special response cases. It could mention the full return format but is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand behavior.

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 100% with a clear description of 'ms_tenant_id'. The tool description does not add further parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves Conditional Access policies for a Microsoft Entra tenant, specifying the verb, resource, and context. It also mentions a prerequisite and special return condition, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on DNS/email/domain checks.

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 usage by naming the specific resource and condition (m365Proxy binding required), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the sibling tools are in different domains, making the usage context clear.

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