roboshadow_get_mfa_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses pagination semantics (5,000-user pages, hasMoreData as the stop condition), the admin-gating requirement, and that the data is PII-bearing. It also names the report contents, which is strong transparency for a report-retrieval 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then pagination, then access and sensitivity. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 only two parameters (one required), full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's domain, output fields, pagination, and admin requirement. An agent can both select and invoke it correctly without external documentation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how skipPages drives pagination ('pass skipPages to page through until hasMoreData is false') and reiterating the 5,000-user page size, while the schema already tells users to discover organisationId via roboshadow_list_organisations.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and a distinct resource ('multi-factor-authentication report'), and lists the exact report contents (MFA methods, MFA status, Global Administrator role). The resource is clearly differentiated from the many sibling report tools, none of which target MFA reports.

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?

It provides clear invocation context: the tool is for Microsoft-identity-linked organisations, is admin-gated, and is paged via skipPages until hasMoreData is false. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the MFA-report scope is unique among siblings, so the absence of exclusions is acceptable.

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