graph_user

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. The verb 'Query' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not mention required permissions, response format, or any limitations such as pagination or field availability.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential purpose in as few words as possible.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks explicit mention of the input parameter in prose and does not describe what the returned profile details contain, which matters because there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 schema has one required parameter, 'email', with no description, and the tool description provides zero parameter guidance. The parameter name is self-explanatory enough to guess, but the description does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage by explaining how the email is used or formatted.

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 a specific action ('Query'), a specific resource ('Azure AD user profile details'), and the access mechanism ('Microsoft Graph'). This distinguishes it from sibling Graph tools like graph_mail, graph_drive, and graph_teams_message, which target different resources.

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 that this tool is for retrieving Azure AD user profile data, which makes the appropriate usage scenario reasonably inferable. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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