Get EntraScopes data status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that setting 'refresh' bypasses the normal cache TTL, giving the agent an understanding of cache behavior. It does not mention additional side effects, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar and this context is genuinely useful.

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 zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads what the tool reports, and the second gives the only behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately lists the return information categories (provenance, refresh time, cache origin, record counts). The tool has only one optional parameter, and annotations cover idempotency and read-only behavior. There is no missing information an agent needs to call this tool correctly; the description is complete for its complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation. It does so by explaining the sole parameter: 'Set refresh to bypass the normal cache TTL.' This adds meaning beyond the bare boolean type and default value in the schema. It does not fully explain the default behavior (e.g., what happens when refresh is false) but the default is implicit in the schema and the description gives the key semantic.

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 ('Report') and a well-defined resource ('dataset provenance, refresh time, cache origin, and record counts'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which target application lookups (search_entra_applications, get_entra_application). An agent immediately understands the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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 implies usage: call this tool when you need dataset status information. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the sibling names make the distinction obvious. The 'Set refresh' tip is a parameter usage note, not a tool-selection criterion, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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