find_orphaned_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond the input schema by specifying authentication requirements ('Requires Azure authentication'), the cost computation method ('via Azure Cost Management'), and the historical aspect ('real historical cost'), which are not covered in the schema. It does not fully detail output format or error handling, but provides substantial operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by additional details in a single, efficient sentence. Every part earns its place by specifying resource types, cost computation, and authentication needs without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's complexity (detecting multiple resource types and computing costs), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job by covering purpose, scope, authentication, and cost method. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., what data is returned) and potential limitations (e.g., rate limits or errors), which would be needed for full completeness in this context.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('days' and 'all_subscriptions'), including defaults. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of 'days' on cost accuracy or 'all_subscriptions' on performance. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps, as there are none.

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 specific action ('detect'), the target resources ('orphaned Azure resources'), and enumerates the resource types (unattached disks, NICs, public IPs, NSGs, empty App Service Plans). It also specifies the scope ('across subscriptions') and additional functionality ('compute their real historical cost via Azure Cost Management'), making it highly specific and distinct from sibling tools focused on pricing, SKUs, or recommendations.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by stating it detects orphaned resources and computes their historical cost, implying usage for cost optimization or cleanup. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as distinguishing from cost estimation or pricing tools, which would have earned a 5.

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