summarize_copilot_usage

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

The description discloses behavioral traits: the behavior difference with/without team_id, the sort order, the adoption calculation, and the 'low' status for teams below 50%. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only summary tool this is acceptable.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. No unnecessary words 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 the tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the two usage scenarios, sort order, and adoption status logic. It does not explain return format (e.g., fields), but is sufficient for typical use.

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 single parameter team_id is described only via the context that providing it yields detailed stats for that team. With 0% schema coverage, this adds some meaning but does not specify format or source of team IDs. Partially compensates but leaves room for improvement.

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 summarizes Microsoft 365 Copilot usage, and specifies two distinct modes: tenant-wide summary with per-team breakdown (no arguments) and detailed stats per team (with team_id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on audit, privacy, or DLP.

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 explicitly tells when to use without arguments (tenant summary) and with team_id (detailed stats), including the sort order (lowest adoption first). However, it does not mention explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives, though siblings are unrelated.

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