azure_query_prices

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the caching behavior ('If data is not cached, it will be fetched automatically') and the return format (dictionary with matching items and summary). No contradictions.

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 well-structured: a concise one-line purpose, then brief caching behavior, followed by clear examples, and a bulleted args list. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and openWorldHint=true, the description adequately covers caching behavior, examples, return type, and parameter usage. It lacks explanation of the 'page' parameter and pagination, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 88% (7 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description repeats parameter details but adds examples that show usage patterns for service, sku_contains, and price_type. However, the 'page' parameter is not documented in the schema or description, so the description does not fully compensate for that gap.

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 'Query cached Azure pricing data with flexible filters', specifying the verb 'query', the resource 'cached Azure pricing data', and the capability 'flexible filters'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like azure_fetch_prices and azure_calculate_cost by focusing on querying a cache.

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 on when to use the tool: for querying cached Azure pricing data with automatic fetching if not cached. Examples demonstrate various use cases (VM pricing, Databricks, reserved instances). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, though the cache vs. fetch distinction is implied.

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