Get number ranges

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the note that $top is not supported server-side, which is a useful behavioral limitation. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or other potential side effects. Given the annotation covers the safety profile, the description adds modest context beyond it.

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 a single sentence with a brief note, front-loading the core purpose and adding a relevant limitation. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary 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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what fields a number range includes, how pagination works (beyond the $top note), or the meaning of the parameters. An agent would struggle to form a correct query without external knowledge of OData conventions.

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 provides no information about any of the four parameters (skip, filter, select, orderby). The parameter names hint at OData conventions, but the agent receives no explanation of expected formats, defaults, or interactions. The description fails entirely to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 ('List') and resource ('number ranges'), and clarifies what they are (auto-incrementing sequences for message numbering). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond the resource name, which is distinct enough. The added clarification about the resource type adds value.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions a limitation about $top, which is a behavioral detail, not usage guidance. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools for comparison, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the resource name alone.

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