run_enterprise_identity_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds the scope of the audit (Entra, Azure, subscriptions, management groups), which is meaningful context, but does not disclose cost, latency, rate limits, or authentication requirements for what is likely an expensive and broad read operation across the tenant.

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. It is appropriately sized for a description that, however, under-specifies behavior; conciseness itself is good here since there is no wasted text.

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 broad, open-world consolidated IAM audit with no output schema, one undocumented parameter, and no annotation-independent behavioral context, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the audit returns, what the top_risks parameter does, or when to prefer it over overlapping siblings such as run_iam_assessment and identity_360.

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?

There is one parameter, top_risks, with 0% schema description coverage and a default of 15. The description says nothing about this parameter, so the agent cannot tell what top_risks controls (number of surfaced risks, ranking cutoff, etc.) or what the default does. With low coverage and an undocumented parameter, the description should have compensated but does not.

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 verb (Executa auditoria) and a specific resource/scenario (IAM enterprise consolidada across Entra, Azure, subscriptions, management groups). This is clearly differentiated from the many sibling tools that audit narrow slices (e.g., list_users, list_azure_role_assignments, get_environment_summary) because it declares itself the consolidated enterprise-wide audit. It is clear but slightly less precise than a 5 because it does not name the specific outputs or distinguish exactly when to prefer it over run_iam_assessment.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope (an enterprise-wide consolidated audit). However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives among siblings, notably run_iam_assessment, iam_natural_language_query, and identity_360, which appear to overlap. The agent must infer that this tool is the broad enterprise audit rather than the narrower sibling assessments.

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