resource_pool_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description redundantly confirms 'Read-only.' However it adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond annotations: it navigates the UI by opening the Security view on the Resource pools tab, which an agent would not otherwise expect from a status read.

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-loaded with 'Resource pools now:' and confined to two sentences. The long enumerative middle clause is dense but every element is informative; 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what the snapshot contains and confirming the read-only nature, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It could still say more about the response shape or scope, but it is close to complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not attempt to document nonexistent inputs and instead spends its budget on output content.

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 resource (resource pools) and enumerates the exact snapshot contents: limits per pool, running/queued queries, the workload manager queue with the awaited resource, and default-pool users. This is far more specific than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like security_pools or workload_status.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over the related pool/workload/security siblings. The only routing-style statement is a UI note ('Opens the Security view on the Resource pools tab'), which is not a use-case or exclusion.

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