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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that an API version must be supplied, which is prerequisite-flavored but reveals nothing about auth, throttling, or return shape; with annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but minimal.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its key input. No filler or redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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 read-only fetch of a single resource, the description plus rich annotations are nearly sufficient. Since no output schema exists, one might expect a brief note on what is returned, but the tool's nature makes that largely inferable.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both params documented (full ARM id format, API version example), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description restates the same two inputs without adding format, syntax, or validation detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a resource by its full ARM id'), which contrasts naturally with the list_* siblings. It clearly distinguishes single-resource retrieval from enumeration, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling.

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 only usage-adjacent sentence ('Provide the api-version for the resource type') is a parameter instruction rather than guidance on when to use this tool. There is no mention of when to prefer it over list_resources or any prerequisite/exclusion.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that—it doesn't mention pagination, output format, or the significance of 'available' regions (e.g., availability for deployment).

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?

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No extraneous 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?

For a simple list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks any mention of the return structure or sorting, and does not provide usage context. Output schema is absent, but for a list operation the return format could be inferred.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter (subscription) is fully documented in the schema, including the default behavior. The description adds no parameter details, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (locations/regions) scoped to a subscription. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_resources and list_resource_groups, though it slightly uses 'locations' and 'regions' interchangeably without clarifying this.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_resources or list_subscriptions. The context of needing a subscription's regions is implied but not stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety/behavior profile is well covered. The description adds an unexplained 'allowlist' filter constraint but doesn't say who controls it, whether access failures are surfaced, or how results are ordered or paginated.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action. The parenthetical is terse to the point of being unclear, but there is no waste.

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 zero-required-param list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the core need is met. However, the unexplained allowlist filtering leaves an agent unsure whether calls will silently return empty or fail, which is meaningful context for a discovery tool.

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% and the single parameter 'subscription' is fully documented in the schema including its AZURE_SUBSCRIPTION_ID default. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List resource groups') with a scope qualifier ('in a subscription'). It's distinguishable from siblings like list_subscriptions and list_resources, though the parentheses note about allowlist filtering is cryptic and unexplained.

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 phrase 'filtered by allowlist' implies a usage constraint but never states when to use this versus list_resources, whether the allowlist is user-configurable, or what happens when a subscription isn't in the allowlist. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the scoping behavior (subscription-wide or resource-group-limited), which is useful context but duplicated by the parameter schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The scope constraint is stated immediately and nothing else is needed.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies adequate scope context. It omits return-shape details, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward enough that this is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, documenting both optional parameters including the default subscription behavior. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (resources) with scope (subscription or resource group). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like list_resource_groups and get_resource, but never names or explicitly contrasts them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The agent is not told when to prefer this over get_resource or list_resource_groups, nor any prerequisites for either scope.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by clarifying that results are filtered by allowlist and limited to what the service principal can see. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core listing action, the resource, and the filtering behavior are all communicated efficiently.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with rich annotations, the description is complete: an agent knows what resource is being listed and what population filter applies. The return shape is self-evident from the verb 'List', and no additional prerequisites or caveats are needed.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter-level information for the description to add. The description instead clarifies the output scope, which is appropriate for a no-argument tool.

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 names a specific resource ('subscriptions') and a clear verb ('List'), and adds an important scope qualifier: only those the service principal can see and that pass the allowlist filter. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling list tools operating on locations, resource groups, or 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?

The intended context is clear: use this when you need subscriptions visible to the service principal. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool names and the resource-focused wording make the appropriate selection reasonably inferable.

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