get_azure_cost_by_dimension

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses defaults (date range, subscription, limit) and ordering (highest cost first). However, it omits details like return format, currency, or aggregation behavior across accounts.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement, parameter list, and examples. It is concise and front-loaded, though the examples could be slightly more focused.

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?

The description lacks information about the return value format (e.g., list of objects, structure). Given no output schema and a moderate number of parameters, this is a notable gap. However, the parameter descriptions and examples are helpful.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage being indicated, the description's Args section provides clear explanations for all 5 parameters, including valid dimension values. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic type definitions.

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 breaks down Azure spend by any dimension (service, resource group, location, or meter) and provides examples. It distinguishes from siblings like get_cost_summary by focusing on dimensional breakdown.

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 lists parameters and examples that imply usage context (e.g., 'Which Azure meters cost the most?'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the examples are clear.

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