check_tenant_privacy_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description details the return structure (dict with tenant metadata, summary count, per-item evidence or action_required), which is sufficient behavioral transparency. It does not indicate side effects or destructive actions, which is appropriate for a read-only 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loading the purpose and then elaborating on the output structure. It is concise but could be slightly more streamlined by combining the second and third sentences.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the return value and its structure. It covers the necessary context for an agent to understand what the tool provides in a compliance sign-off scenario.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds value by explaining the output format and intended use, which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 'Return the tenant's M365 privacy / compliance configuration with verification status' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'audit_conditional_access_policies' or 'list_dlp_policies' by focusing on privacy and compliance configuration mirroring a checklist.

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 implies usage for generating sign-off documents for compliance owners, providing context that the output is structured for direct insertion into a checklist. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the use case is clearly defined.

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