summarize_application_provenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that output is count/percentage oriented with a governance focus, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but omits anything on data freshness or the scope of the count.

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 that names the subject first and then the comparison axis. The parenthetical 'criadas no tenant' clarifies the jargon immediately; slightly dense but no wasted clauses.

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 zero-argument, read-only aggregation with no output schema, the description supplies enough for an agent to know what the summary contains (governance vs pre-provisioned split with percentages). Only the relationship to the sibling list tool is left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies with no parameter gaps to compensate for.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Resumo executivo da procedência das aplicações do tenant') and adds the exact axis of comparison: tenant-governed vs Microsoft pre-provisioned, with percentages. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling list_application_provenance, so the agent must infer that this is the aggregated/summary variant.

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 'executive summary' framing implies a reporting use case, but the description never states when to pick this over list_application_provenance (the raw list) or other assessment tools. Usage is inferable from the noun 'resumo', not stated.

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