Find Azure resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it searches across all subscriptions, returns resource IDs plus type, location, SKU, and provisioning state, and gives representative Azure resource types. No contradiction with 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 tightly written: one sentence establishes what the tool does, one sentence states return value value and fields, and the example plus common-types list are compact and directly useful. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what can be searched, that it spans subscriptions, what fields come back, how results are useful for downstream tools, and common type values. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without inspecting other resources.

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?

The input schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by translating the parameter surface into a natural-language filter list, providing a concrete example combining name and type, and mapping common Azure type strings to friendly names like App Service, Functions, and AKS.

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 a specific verb and resource: finds Azure resources by name, type, resource group, location, or tag across all subscriptions at once. It also describes what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like azure_resource_graph_query or azure_get_resource, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to discover resources across subscriptions by structured filters and obtain IDs for other tools. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly mention alternatives, even though sibling tools such as azure_resource_graph_query and azure_get_resource likely overlap.

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