get_risky_users

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: a required Entra ID P2 license, the risk-ordering behavior, and the scope of accounts returned. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: main action in the first sentence, use cases in the second, and a prerequisite in the third. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter read-only tool, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, ordering, use cases, and licensing without needing to duplicate schema information.

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 100%; both parameters are already well documented in the schema, including defaults and allowed range. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the tool lists accounts flagged as risky by Entra Identity Protection, sorted from most to least risky. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation.

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 explicitly says when to use it: to get an overview of tenant exposure or to confirm a specific account is considered compromised. It provides clear usage context, but does not mention exclusions or alternative sibling tools.

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