check_auth

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 clearly states that this tool makes no Azure Data Factory calls and only proves auth configuration, and that it acquires a real ARM token. This is strong disclosure of scope and side effects. It could have described potential failure behaviors (e.g., what happens on invalid credentials), but the stated behavior is transparent and sufficient.

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 sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does and the second clarifies scope and when to use it. There is zero redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 no parameters, an output schema exists (so return values are covered), and the description provides clear purpose, scope, and usage sequence, nothing is missing for correct invocation. It fully covers the essential context an agent needs.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description already communicates the tool's purpose and usage, requiring no additional parameter context.

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 ('Verify') and resource ('Azure Service Principal credentials') and explains the action ('acquiring a real ARM token'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it makes no ADF calls and is for auth verification only, so an agent can clearly tell it apart from health_check or list_factories without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Run this after health_check and before Step 3.' It also clarifies the context ('before any ADF connectivity exists') and states what the tool does not do, steering the agent away from using it for other purposes. Alternatives are not named but the sibling tools are all ADF operations, so the intended use is unambiguous.

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