list_application_secrets_expiring

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds the filtering behavior of expired or near-expiry status, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or whether the result includes full secret metadata. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, focused sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand and select the tool.

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 simple, read-only list tool with no required parameters and no nested objects, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to call it. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly linking 'days' to the expiration threshold and describing the output shape, but the basic invocation context is sufficiently covered.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It only indirectly relates to 'days' by mentioning proximity to expiration, and it says nothing about 'limit' or how these parameters interact with the filter. The schema shows defaults, but no semantic meaning is added beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a clear resource ('secrets expirados ou próximos da expiração em aplicações do Entra ID'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also differentiates this tool from sibling list tools such as list_users or list_azure_role_assignments by focusing specifically on application secrets expiring soon.

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 intended use case is implied by the description: auditing Entra ID application secrets that are expired or about to expire. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions such as 'use only when you need expiration, not all secrets.'

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