gal_search_directory_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permission requirements, matching semantics (exact vs prefix vs substring), pagination, or result caps. It only implies read-only behavior via 'Searches'.

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 tight sentence with the key searchable attributes front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly what leaves the behavioral gaps.

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?

The tool is simple (one required search term) and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the definition omits matching rules and the unpaginated-ish 'top' behavior that an agent needs to call it correctly.

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. It usefully explains that search_term matches displayName, UPN, or email, but says nothing about the 'top' parameter or its default of 20, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (Searches) and resource (directory accounts in Microsoft Entra ID) and names the three attributes that can be matched. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the m365_* user-lookup siblings such as m365_get_user_profile.

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?

No guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the sibling lookup tools, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the one-line purpose.

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