Azure Advisor Cost Recommendations

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope restriction (subscription only, not management group) and what types of recommendations are covered (unattached disks, unused IPs, etc.). It implies read-only behavior with 'Retrieves,' but does not disclose rate limits, authentication, or return format. Still, the scope and coverage details are valuable behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, coverage scope, and usage/scope caveat. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and wastes no words. Structure is clear and scannable.

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 tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it does, when to use it (WAF/FinOps), and scope limitations. It stops short of describing pagination or response structure, but for a retrieval tool this is acceptable and covered by the parameter schema for top/limit.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains which recommendations are included (right-sizing, idle resources) and explicitly advises starting with High impact for maximum savings, reinforcing the impact parameter. This adds practical meaning to the parameter choices.

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 verb 'Retrieves' and the resource 'Azure Advisor cost optimization recommendations for a subscription.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like cost queries or forecasts by focusing specifically on Advisor recommendations and even lists example categories (right-sizing VMs, deleting idle resources).

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'WAF Cost Optimization: address High impact recommendations first' and 'CAF FinOps: run across all landing zone subscriptions.' It also sets a hard constraint by noting 'Advisor operates at subscription scope; management group scope is not supported.' However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like azure_cost_query or azure_cost_forecast, though the context makes the intended use clear.

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