m365_audit_ex_employees

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. 'Audits' strongly implies a read-only operation, but that is never stated, nor are permission requirements, scope, or whether any remediation is performed. It does disclose the specific audit criteria (NDR 550 5.1.10, license optimization), which is useful context.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, target, and two audit dimensions with no filler. It is dense in domain jargon but every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. However, for an audit tool with no annotations, the description leaves out whether it is read-only and what the agent should do next, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. No param gaps exist to compensate for.

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 (audits) and a specific resource (disabled or terminated accounts) plus the two concrete concerns it checks: NDR 550 5.1.10 risks and license optimization. This distinguishes it from auditing siblings like gal_audit_external_mail_contacts, though it does not name which sibling to pick instead.

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?

Use is implied by the 'ex_employees' name and the audit framing, but there is no explicit statement of when to run this versus m365_convert_ex_employee_to_shared, m365_get_mailbox_info, or m365_list_license_skus. No prerequisites or triggers are given.

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