inforcer_alignment_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently states 'Read-only.' It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the accepted tenant identifier forms (numeric ID, DNS name, AAD GUID, friendly name) and the fact that it resolves to the numeric Client Tenant ID before making the request.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds relevant information. It avoids redundant filler and is easy to process quickly.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main necessary context: what it gets, what tenant identifier forms are accepted, and the resolution behavior. It does not enumerate what fields 'details' includes, but the tool name and sibling set make the scope reasonably clear.

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 parameter description essentially repeats the tool description. The description does not add any new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('baseline-alignment drift') and qualifies it as 'detailed', which suggests a more granular result than the sibling inforcer_alignment_scores. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with that sibling, so differentiation relies mostly on the word 'detailed' and the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inforcer_alignment_scores or inforcer_baselines_list. The description gives tenant-identifier format guidance, which is parameter-level usage, not tool-selection guidance.

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