list_guests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains what the tool returns and implies a read-only nature via 'Browse.' It also indicates the tool does not provide full episode lists, directing to get_guest for that. The description does not explicitly mention side effects, but for a directory listing tool, the behavior is well-understood and clearly described.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second details the return contents, and the third provides a pointer to an alternative. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no 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 that there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return structure (profile links, episode count, latest appearance). It also covers the tool's scope and directs users to a sibling tool for more detail. The input schema handles parameter documentation, and the description provides the necessary context for a listing tool. The tool is simple enough that this description is complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. The parameters (limit, query, offset) are fully described in the schema, and the description focuses on the return structure rather than parameter details. No additional value is added here.

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's purpose: 'Browse the directory of Entra.Chat podcast guests.' It specifies the resource (guest directory), the verb (browse), and the return structure (profile links, episode counts, latest appearance). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_guest by directing users there for full per-guest episode lists.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'Use get_guest for a full per-guest episode list.' It implies that this tool is for browsing the directory and getting summary information, and it gives a clear pointer for a more detailed need. However, it doesn't explicitly discuss other siblings like search_entra_podcasts or list_episodes, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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