Resource health and service issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying the output includes availability, recent changes with Azure's stated reason, and active service issues—details not covered by annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 filler. The primary function is stated first, followed by usage context. Every phrase earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 health check with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns and when to use it. It's complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 schema already documents resourceId as 'Resource ID to check' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the resource is Azure-managed. Since the schema handles it, a 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 reports Azure's own health assessment of a resource, including current availability, recent changes with reasons, and active service issues. It explicitly frames the purpose as distinguishing platform problems from application problems, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like azure_activity_log or azure_metrics.

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 explicit guidance to use this tool early when an app is down, to differentiate platform vs. application issues. It implies the alternative is to check application logs or other diagnostics, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools. This is clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.

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