get_authentication_methods_summary

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds some context by indicating this is a tenant-level summary of MFA registration and passwordless capability, but it does not disclose more specific behavioral traits such as aggregation approach, data freshness, or what exactly is counted.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids redundancy with the schema or annotations, making it an efficiently structured definition.

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?

The tool has no parameters and benefits from strong annotations, but there is no output schema and the description does not detail what the summary contains. Terms like 'capacidade passwordless' are somewhat vague, so an agent may not know exactly what fields or metrics the response will include without further inference.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema already fully covers parameter semantics. With no parameters, the description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation, making the baseline 4 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Resumo') and resource ('registro de MFA e capacidade passwordless do tenant'), indicating a tenant-level summary. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_user_authentication_methods by focusing on tenant-wide MFA registration and passwordless capability, though it does not explicitly name any 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preferred scenarios, exclusions, or which sibling tools cover other aspects of MFA or authentication data. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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