inforcer_secure_scores_get

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' More importantly, it adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tenant identifier accepts multiple formats and is resolved to the numeric Client Tenant ID before the request. No contradiction with annotations found.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the tenant identifier formats are specified compactly, and the read-only nature is stated clearly.

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 helpful annotations, the description covers what the tool does and exactly how to identify the tenant. No critical calling information is missing, and the lack of an output schema is acceptable given the simplicity and clarity of the operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the tenant parameter description repeats the tool-level description almost verbatim. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter meaning, the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the baseline.

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'), a clear resource ('Microsoft Secure Score data'), and a target ('a tenant'). It is immediately distinguishable from all listed sibling tools, none of which cover Secure Score.

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 intended use case is implied: use this tool when you need Secure Score data for a tenant. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference any alternative sibling tools.

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