inforcer_tenants_resolve

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces 'Read-only' while adding the important distinction that the output is not the Azure AD tenant GUID. This goes beyond just restating the annotation and helps an agent avoid a common mistake. It does not, however, go deeper into response shape or failure modes beyond what the schema already says.

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 a single, well-constructed sentence that front-loads the core action, lists the accepted input forms, defines the output, and ends with the key caveat. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only resolver with no output schema, the description together with the schema fully equips an agent to call it correctly: acceptable inputs, resolution behavior, output type, read-only nature, and the ambiguity error are all covered. No meaningful information is missing.

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 coverage is 100%: the single 'tenant' parameter is fully described with accepted input formats, resolution behavior, and an explicit note about ambiguous names throwing an error. The tool description largely repeats this information, with the added caveat that the result is NOT the Azure AD tenant GUID. This is a useful reinforcement but not a substantial leap beyond the schema, hence baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb ('Resolve') and a precise resource: tenant identifiers (name, DNS name, Azure AD GUID) mapped to the numeric Inforcer Client Tenant ID. It also adds a crucial distinguishing caveat that this ID is NOT the Azure AD tenant GUID, which sets it apart from mere lookup tools and prevents a common confusion.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever you need to convert a tenant name, DNS name, or Azure AD GUID into the numeric Inforcer Client Tenant ID. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like inforcer_tenants_list or inforcer_tenants_get or state when not to use it, but the specialized resolution purpose provides clear context and leaves little ambiguity.

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