list_service_principals

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses 'with paging,' which is useful, but does not state whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'List'), nor does it explain pagination mechanics or any permission requirements. This is minimal but non-tautological behavioral content.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, with no fluff or repetition. It says exactly what the tool does in minimal words.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core function: listing all service principals. 'With paging' hints at pagination but doesn't detail the next-link mechanism, so it's not fully complete, yet sufficient for a straightforward list 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 input schema has one parameter ('limit') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The description says 'with paging' but fails to clarify that 'limit' controls page size, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's field name and default.

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 'List all service principals in the tenant, with paging' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('service principals') with scope ('in the tenant'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool get_service_principal_by_id by explicitly covering all principals rather than a single one.

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 for enumerating all service principals but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer get_service_principal_by_id for a specific principal, so guidance is only implied.

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