onboarding_post_wo_query_unmanaged_machine

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already carried by structured data. The description adds only the scoping fact (current organization, Provisioning service inventory). It says nothing about pagination behavior (even though pageResultLimit and nextPageLink exist) or about the fact that this is a POST-based query. The 'Query' wording sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=false, but does not outright contradict it.

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 single descriptive sentence is repeated word-for-word, and the raw HTTP path 'POST /relocation/api/wo/query-unmanaged-machine' is appended after the useful content. Roughly half the text is redundancy, and there is no front-loaded separation of scope versus behavior.

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?

Against a deeply nested request body with nine optional fields, required planLink, no output schema, and only generic annotations, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot learn what the response looks like, how paging works, or what the option* flags do from it. The tool is identifiable but not operable from the description alone.

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 reported as 100%, so the baseline is 3. In practice the schema itself is thin (the body is described only as 'Request body' and the fields such as filters, planLink, sortOptions, nextPageLink, pageResultLimit, and the option* flags carry no prose), and the description compensates with nothing. It never mentions that planLink is required, nor any other parameter meaning.

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 states a verb and resource: query compute resources representing unmanaged machines from the Provisioning service inventory. However, the same sentence is duplicated verbatim and followed by a raw endpoint path, and it never distinguishes this tool from the many sibling onboarding_* / iaas_get_* query tools. The core purpose is recoverable but the definition adds no discriminating detail.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (for example, must a plan link exist first?), and no exclusions. The only implicit guidance is the word 'Query' and the 'current organization' scoping phrase, which is not enough to route an agent among ~500 siblings.

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