GetServiceBindingPreviewUrl

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

With no structured annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it self-labels [read-only], explains that it reads the binding plus service definition, discloses the failure behavior ('says what is missing rather than guessing'), and notes the Web API binding branch (no preview page, returns service URLs instead). It omits auth/permission requirements but covers the key behavioral branches.

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?

Front-loads the verb and the delivered artifacts, then layers the intent phrases and edge cases. The 'Answers:' list runs slightly long but each item earns its place as a retrieval cue, and there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values and it does (preview URL, service URL, $metadata URL) plus the Web API fallback. Combined with fully documented input params, an agent has what it needs, though permission/auth context for building a logon URL is unaddressed.

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%, so every parameter, including defaults and the empty-string client behavior, is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces why entity_set matters (the preview URL needs an entity set) but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb (Build) and resource (browser URL previewing a published service binding), and clarifies it also returns the service and $metadata URLs. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling GetServiceBinding, which fetches the binding object rather than composing preview URLs.

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?

Maps explicit user intents to the tool ('open the service in a browser', 'preview this service binding', 'what is the OData URL of this binding'), which is strong routing guidance. However, it never names a competing sibling or states when NOT to use it, so it stops short of the explicit alternative-routing bar.

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