entra_list_sign_ins

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable operational constraints beyond these: UTC timestamps, 30-day retention, licensing requirements, and the recommendation to filter rather than page deeply. This helps the agent understand real-world limitations without contradicting 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 well-organized: a lead sentence defining the tool, followed by practical filtering examples and key constraints. There is no filler, though the list of examples could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential operational context: licensing, retention, timezone, and filtering behavior. It does not describe pagination or default ordering, but the schema already documents top and refines filter guidance, so no critical gap remains.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters, so the baseline is a 3. The description adds meaningful guidance on the filter parameter with concrete OData examples and underscores the timezone for createdDateTime, giving the agent more context than the schema alone provides.

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 specific operation: listing interactive sign-ins from the Entra ID sign-in log, and enumerates the key returned fields. This distinguishes it from the sibling entra_list_directory_audits and all Defender tools by naming a distinct resource and log type.

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 provides clear operational guidance, especially 'Always filter' with concrete OData examples, and explains the 30-day retention and licensing prerequisite. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this tool versus an alternative, but the resource and use case are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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