azure_price_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions 'various filters' but doesn't describe what the search returns (format, structure), whether it's paginated, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a 10-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, 11 sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or how it differs from similar tools. For a search tool with rich filtering options and many alternatives, more context about output and differentiation would be needed.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond mentioning 'various filters' generically. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context about how parameters interact or typical usage patterns.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('Azure retail prices') with scope ('with various filters'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like azure_price_compare or azure_ri_pricing), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 the 11 sibling tools listed. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this search tool is preferred over other pricing/cost-related tools in the same server.

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