list_applications_without_owners

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping detail that only applications without owners are returned and that the source is Entra ID, but does not disclose additional behavior such as pagination, limits, or data completeness beyond what the annotations already imply.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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 operation with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the source system, the filtering condition, and the action. It could be slightly richer by describing the return shape or clarifying the limit parameter, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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 schema has one optional parameter, limit, and the description provides no explanation of it. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description was expected to compensate, but it does not mention limit, its default, or its effect on results.

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 the verb ('Lista'), the resource ('aplicações'), and the filtering condition ('sem owner definido no Entra ID'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on agents, users, or generic objects, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_objects_without_owner or list_agents_by_owner. It states what the tool does but not the conditions under which it should be selected, nor any exclusions.

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