Activity log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context about the content returned (caller and error message) and the scoping options, which goes beyond the structured fields. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but that is minor given the 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds actionable usage guidance. Every clause earns its place, making it an exemplar of concision.

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 log-listing tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, how to scope, and filtering. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by mentioning the caller and error message. It does not detail the event structure or pagination behavior, but these are either inferable or covered by parameters.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description enhances meaning for 'scope' by explaining the three scoping levels, and for 'onlyFailures' by stating its purpose. This adds value over the schema, though it does not elaborate on 'hours' or 'limit' beyond their defaults.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('control-plane operations from the Azure activity log'), and gives concrete examples (deployments, restarts, scaling, etc.) that make its purpose unmistakable. It also differentiates itself from sibling log tools by explicitly scoping to control-plane operations, which is distinct from data-plane logs.

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 clear usage context: how to scope (resource, resource group, subscription) and how to filter (onlyFailures). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the differentiation to implication rather than direct guidance.

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