List Microsoft 365 Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema—it does not mention pagination, default result sizes, or response format. It only restates the parameter names.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action 'List groups', and contains no filler or redundant content. While brief, it is efficiently structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of group objects). It also lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and any mention of limitations or defaults. Given the tool's relative simplicity, the description is under-specified for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 schema has no descriptions for parameters, and the description only lists their names without explaining their meaning or syntax. For example, it does not clarify that 'filter' uses OData filtering syntax or that 'select' limits returned properties. With 0% schema description coverage, this falls short of compensating for the lack of detail.

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 identifies the action ('List groups') and the resource (Microsoft 365 Groups), and it mentions the optional OData parameters ($top, $filter, $select, $orderby). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_group or list_group_members, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as 'use get_group for a single group' or 'use list_group_members for group members', leaving the selection to the agent's inference from the tool name.

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