get_conditional_access_policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by promising the 'état réel d'application' and listing the specific coverage-failure states it can reveal. 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?

Two tight sentences: the first announces the action and scope, the second gives concrete use cases. No filler or redundant restatement of schema information.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return structure, the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, and annotations cover behavior. The description supplies the missing contextual layer: why the agent would need this tool and what insights it provides.

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% and the single optional limit parameter already has an explicit description with default and maximum. The tool description adds no new param detail, so the default baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Liste') and resource ('politiques d'accès conditionnel du tenant') and adds a distinguishing property ('état réel d'application'). This clearly separates it from the more user-centric sibling tools such as get_user_signins or get_risk_detections.

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 explicitly says when to use it: to explain a blocked connection with error code 53003 or to detect coverage gaps caused by disabled policies, audit-only mode, or exclusions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the use cases are strong and concrete.

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