query_azure_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds contextual scope beyond the annotations by specifying the data domains (inventory, config, tags, policy, health) and the underlying mechanism (Azure Resource Graph). It does not add details like rate limits or pagination behavior, but the schema covers pagination via skipToken and maxResults, so the bar is appropriately lowered.

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 exactly two sentences: the first front-loads the primary use cases and scope, and the second delivers a crisp exclusion with a sibling alternative. No filler or redundant content, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the rich annotations, fully self-describing schema, and a description that clearly delineates scope and alternatives, the tool is fully contextualized. The tool is a read-only query tool, and the description covers what it queries and what it avoids. The lack of an output schema is acceptable per rules, as the return value is not a required explanatory element.

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 input schema includes comprehensive descriptions for all four parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Use for Azure resource inventory, configuration, tags, policy, health, and cross-subscription discovery through Azure Resource Graph.' It distinguishes from the sibling query_workspace by explicitly naming what it does NOT do and directing to the 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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance is provided: 'Do not use for telemetry, logs, events, or time-series analysis; use query_workspace for those.' This directly references the sibling tool as an alternative, making the usage boundaries unambiguous.

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