get_service_principal_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action and parameter, offering no details on read-only nature, permission requirements, error handling for invalid IDs, or what fields are returned. This adds no transparency beyond the tool name itself.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the essential purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 getter with an output schema, a one-line description is mostly sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. However, it lacks notes on prerequisites or edge-case behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's presence, the context is nearly complete.

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 has only one parameter (sp_id) with 0% description coverage. The description says 'by its object ID', which helps interpret sp_id as an object ID, but it does not explicitly define the parameter or mention its type/format. This partial compensation keeps it adequate but not thorough.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('service principal') with a precise scope ('by its object ID'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_service_principals' and 'get_application_by_id' by specifying the resource and identifier.

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 implies usage when you have a service principal object ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_service_principals' for lookup-by-name or 'search_users'. There are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations, so guidance is minimal.

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