Read one agent from the Microsoft 365 catalogue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the operation is read-only, scoped to cs_login 'graph', requires a Microsoft Agent 365 licence, is global-cloud only, and is unverified against a live tenant. These are meaningful behavioral caveats beyond the basic schema.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the core purpose, then add the raw-body rationale, then list constraints. Every sentence earns its place; there is no padding or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return content, read-only posture, and operational requirements. It lacks an explicit example or a note on error behavior, but the combination of a rich description and fully documented schema is reasonably 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 parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on output richness rather than clarifying id, version, clientId, tenantId, or workspace.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('one agent from the Microsoft 365 catalogue'), and enumerates the returned contents: metadata, element types, availability, deployment state, and blocked status. It also distinguishes the detail resource from list rows, which separates it from sibling list tools like cs_list_org_agents.

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 clearly positions this as the detail-fetch tool, noting that the raw body is returned because the detail resource carries more than the list rows. This gives an agent context for when this tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it.

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