list_applications_without_owners

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the entire safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond restating the purpose – no pagination behavior, no result-size expectations tied to the limit default of 50, no indication of how ownership is determined.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for the tool's scope.

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 listing tool with safety annotations already present, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and an undocumented limit parameter, it does not tell the agent what a result entry contains or how the list is bounded.

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 only parameter, limit (default 50), has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned anywhere in the description. With one undocumented parameter the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the agent to guess whether limit caps items, applications, or pages.

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 verb ("Lista") plus resource ("aplicações") and an explicit filter scope ("sem owner definido no Entra ID"), so an agent knows exactly what set is returned. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling list_objects_without_owner, leaving ambiguity about which orphan-detection tool applies to applications versus general objects.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_objects_without_owner, get_owned_objects, or list_application_provenance. The agent must infer the right context from the name alone.

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