Where does telemetry go?

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by listing the types of telemetry sinks it resolves and stating that it returns both resource IDs and tables to query.

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 compact, information-dense, and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence clearly states when to invoke the tool. No filler or redundant phrasing is present.

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 resource-discovery tool with no output schema, the description explains what will be returned, how to use the results, and when to call it. It does not cover edge cases like unsupported resources or absence of telemetry configuration, but the core information an agent needs is presente.

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 single parameter resourceId has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the resource type examples from the schema but does not add substantial new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose: finding where a resource's logs and telemetry are stored. It enumerates specific storage destinations and explicitly distinguishes this discovery tool from log-querying capabilities by saying it returns resource IDs and table names to use with 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 gives a clear usage instruction: call this before querying logs for a resource you have not looked at yet. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative discovery tools, but the placement as a prerequisite to azure_logs_query and azure_appinsights_failures provides strong contextual guidance.

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