Get OAuth2 credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' is consistent. The description adds a meaningful behavioral note that $top is not supported server-side, which is beyond the annotations and useful for agents constructing queries. It does not contradict any annotations, and this extra limitation disclosure justifies a strong score.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by a concise limitation note. It is efficient with no redundant phrasing, though it could have added more utility without becoming verbose. The structure is appropriate for a simple list operation.

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 tool has four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the purpose or expected format of any parameter, and does not mention pagination, return structure, or any other operational context. For an agent to correctly construct a query, the missing parameter semantics are a significant gap.

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 explanation of the four parameters (skip, filter, select, orderby). The only mention, $top, is not even a parameter in the schema. With zero schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining parameter syntax, valid values, or usage, leaving agents without guidance on how to use these options.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'OAuth2 client credential configurations' with a scope of 'deployed on the tenant', making the purpose specific and easily distinguishable from siblings by resource type. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or contrast with similar get_* tools, so it stops short of the highest rating.

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 such as get_user_credentials or get_keystore_entries. It relies solely on the resource name for differentiation, offering no explicit conditions or exclusions. An agent would need to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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