get_idle_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful context that results are 'resolved from idle-type cost recommendation categories', which explains the data source. However, it doesn't disclose behavior like whether results are pre-filtered, how 'idle/underutilized' is determined, or whether the limit parameter caps at a hard maximum.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, with a parenthetical that adds valuable context about the data source. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't clarify the relationship to sibling tools like get_cost_recommendations or get_cost_recommendation_categories, which could matter for an agent deciding between them. The parenthetical hints at the connection but doesn't make it explicit.

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 (limit and provider). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('Get') and resource ('idle/underutilized cloud resources'), and adds a clarifying parenthetical about how these are resolved (from idle-type cost recommendation categories). This is clear and distinguishes it from generic list tools like get_devices or get_cost_recommendations, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 context: it's for retrieving idle/underutilized cloud resources, and the parenthetical ties it to cost recommendation categories, which hints at a cost-optimization workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cost_recommendations or get_cost_recommendation, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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