m365_get_mailbox_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieves' implies a read operation, but nothing states whether elevated permissions are needed, whether the call is rate-limited, or that 'comprehensive' means the full property set is always returned. With zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap for a mailbox-admin tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical field list is compact and informative. It is appropriately sized, though slightly list-heavy rather than explanatory.

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 the tool is a simple one-parameter read. However, with no annotations and an undocumented identity parameter, the definition leaves the two things an agent most needs — how to identify the mailbox and what authority the call requires — unstated.

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 single required parameter 'identity' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never explains it. An agent cannot tell from either source whether identity accepts a UPN, SMTP address, alias, display name, or GUID — a real ambiguity for an Exchange-style identity parameter.

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+resource (retrieves mailbox properties) and enumerates the property groups returned (type, protocols, UPN, aliases, forwarding, quotas), which cleanly separates it from m365_list_mailboxes (enumeration) and m365_get_user_profile (user, not mailbox). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g., required admin roles), and no routing to alternatives such as m365_list_mailboxes for discovery. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Retrieves'.

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