list_orphan_azure_role_assignments

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 safety and side-effect profile. The description adds only the scoping condition for 'orphan', which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, tenant-visibility limits, or the fact that unresolved principals may be a transient/edge state. Against rich annotations, a 2 reflects minimal added behavioral context.

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?

One short parenthetical sentence that front-loads the resource and the defining filter. Nothing extraneous, though it is arguably too terse given the missing guidelines and parameter detail.

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 list tool with one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and a dense sibling neighborhood of similar role-assignment tools, the definition is under-specified. The agent lacks guidance on selection, return shape, and limit behavior.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter has no description in either schema or description. The description does not explain what 'limit' bounds, defaults, or whether it is a page size. With the only parameter undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though a single param keeps the damage limited.

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 states a specific resource ('role assignments órfãos') and qualifies it with 'principal não resolvido no tenant visível'. However, it is in Portuguese while tool names and siblings are in English, and it doesn't differentiate this tool from close siblings like list_azure_role_assignments or list_privileged_azure_role_assignments. Purpose is discernible but not sharp.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer from the name which sibling to pick, and the description offers no routing hints despite ~8 closely related role-assignment tools in the sibling list.

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