validate_azure_resource_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs validation and returns a ValidationResult with issues found, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication requirements that might be relevant for a validation tool.

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 purpose statement, parameter explanations, return value description, and a clear example. Every sentence earns its place, though the example could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining what the tool does, what parameters mean, and what to expect. The example provides concrete usage. It could be more complete by explaining the ValidationResult structure or providing more context about the Darwin platform.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for both parameters: 'resource_name' as 'The resource name to validate' and 'resource_type' as 'Type of Azure resource' with examples. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more guidance on valid resource_type values.

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's purpose with specific verb ('validate') and resource ('Azure resource name'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on naming conventions for Azure resources. It explicitly mentions checking against 'Darwin platform naming conventions for Azure resources', which provides domain-specific context.

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 validating Azure resource names against naming conventions, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison is made with sibling tools like 'validate_agent_card' or 'validate_mcp_tool_definition', leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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