List Azure Subscriptions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by specifying the returned fields (name, ID, state) and that it shows the active subscription. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond what annotations convey.

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 two sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and it is front-loaded. Ideal conciseness.

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 simple listing tool with one parameter and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It describes what is returned, when to use it, and the constraint (Azure-only). Output schema is not needed because the description enumerates returned fields.

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 covers the single parameter 'provider' with a const value 'azure' and a description, achieving 100% coverage. The description doesn't add further parameter semantics, but the schema description is sufficient, placing this at 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 clearly states the tool returns all Azure subscriptions the credential can access, including name, ID, state, and active status. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with projects or costs.

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 advises using it when the user has multiple subscriptions and wants to see availability or confirm the active subscription. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but given the tool's nature and sibling tools, the context is clear.

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