run_enterprise_identity_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds useful scope context (Entra, Azure, subscriptions, management groups) and clearly signals an audit/read operation. No contradiction.

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 sentence states the action, object, and scope in a parenthetical, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 complex enterprise-wide audit tool with no output schema, the description does not explain what the audit returns, what 'top_risks' means, or whether the output is a report, list, or score. The annotations cover safety, but the agent cannot anticipate the result shape or configure the one parameter meaningfully.

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 description does not mention top_risks at all. The agent is left to infer that the parameter controls the number of top risks returned, with no guidance on units, effect, or valid range.

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 ('Executa') and names a clear resource ('auditoria IAM enterprise') with explicit scope breakdown (Entra + Azure + subscriptions + management groups). This differentiates it from sibling tools like run_iam_assessment and the many list_* tools.

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 word 'consolidada' implies this is the broad, cross-scope enterprise audit, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over run_iam_assessment, graph_assessment, or the timeline assessment tools.

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