spot_eviction_rates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements ('Requires Azure authentication') and return format ('Returns eviction rate categories'), but does not cover other behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. The description adds some context but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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, followed by prerequisites and return details in two concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining authentication and return categories, but it lacks details on output structure (e.g., format of returned data), error cases, or performance considerations. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output, it is adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('skus' and 'locations') with examples. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it only repeats the parameter concepts without additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Spot VM eviction rates'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on eviction rates rather than pricing, discovery, or simulation. It specifies the exact data returned (eviction rate categories), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Get Spot VM eviction rates for specified SKUs and regions'), but does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings (e.g., 'spot_price_history' or 'simulate_eviction'). It provides clear context for usage but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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