Clarify usage of Application Gateway vs Load Balancer

Updated notes on using Application Gateway and Load Balancer for Foundry deployments.

Author: brown9804

0_Azure/3_AzureAI/AIFoundry/demos/13_APIM_LoadBalancer_AI.md

@@ -43,8 +43,8 @@ Last updated: 2026-01-22
 
 > [!NOTE]
 > For **MSFT Foundry APIs**, you can use **Application Gateway** because it’s HTTP/S‑aware, integrates with APIM, and provides advanced routing + [WAF](https://docs.azure.cn/en-us/web-application-firewall/overview) security. Azure Load Balancer is useful for **internal, low‑level traffic distribution**, but not sufficient on its own for developer‑facing Foundry workloads.
-> - If your Foundry deployments are directly consumed as APIs (which they usually are), Application Gateway is the right fit because it understands HTTP/S and integrates naturally with APIM.
-> - If your Foundry workloads are wrapped inside VM/container clusters and you just need raw traffic distribution, Load Balancer is simpler and faster. But you’d still need APIM or Gateway in front for API‑level features.
+> - If your Foundry `deployments are directly consumed as APIs (which they usually are), Application Gateway is the right fit` because it understands `HTTP/S and integrates naturally with APIM.`
+> - If your `Foundry workloads are wrapped inside VM/container clusters and you just need raw traffic distribution, Load Balancer` is simpler and faster. But you’d still `need APIM or Gateway in front for API‑level features.`
 
 <img width="567" height="383" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/bb67fc6c-5407-49b2-8a1f-52963689d37d" />