Application failures overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by detailing what the overview includes (top exceptions, failing dependencies, slowest operations) and that each entry carries an operation ID for trace handoff, which is useful beyond the structured 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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and content of the overview; the second sentence explains the operation ID handoff to the sibling tool. Every word adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns, and it does so comprehensively: request volume, failure rate, failed operations, exceptions, dependencies, slow operations, and operation IDs. It does not detail pagination/limits, but for a triage overview with all parameters documented and annotations covering safety, this is sufficient.

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% per the context signals, and each parameter (role, hours, appInsightsId) already has a descriptive definition in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond implicitly referencing the app and the one-call nature, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'One-call triage of an application from Application Insights' and enumerates the exact failure-related data returned: request volume, failure rate, failed operations, exceptions, dependencies, and slow operations. This specific verb-resource pairing clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like azure_appinsights_trace (which it names) and generic logging/query tools.

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 clearly positions this as an initial triage tool, and explicitly instructs the agent to pass the sample operation ID to azure_appinsights_trace for full end-to-end transaction details. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for non-failure investigations, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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