get_subscriptions_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are scoped to what the authenticated identity can actually see (RBAC visibility), which explains why two callers get different numbers. No return format or rate-limit details.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage examples and an exclusion. The three example questions are largely paraphrases of one another, so the middle block is slightly redundant, but nothing is misleading or bloated.

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?

For a zero-parameter counting tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the scope, the intended queries, and an anti-pattern tool to avoid. With no output schema present, a brief note on the exact return shape (a single integer/record) would make it fully self-contained, but everything needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the empty schema is self-explanatory. No parameter-level gaps to compensate for.

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 precise verb+resource (return the count of Azure subscriptions) and adds a scope qualifier: only those visible to the authenticated identity. It also contrasts itself with a named sibling, search_official_guidance, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers via three example questions and an explicit when-not clause ('NÃO use search_official_guidance'). It does not mention the adjacent subscription-oriented siblings (e.g., get_subscription_direct_access_summary, list_resources) that an agent might otherwise pick, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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