Read one agent from the Microsoft 365 catalogue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only semantics, the required cs_login scope ('graph'), the Agent 365 licence prerequisite, the global-cloud restriction, and candidly flags that it is 'Unverified against a live tenant.' It stops short of describing failure modes or behavior under missing licence/permissions, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then constraints, then the caveat — three tight sentences with no filler. The clause explaining the raw body ('the detail resource carries more than the list rows') earns its place as rationale.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned content and noting the raw body, which is exactly what an agent needs. Prerequisites and scope are covered; only error/permission-failure behavior is left implicit.

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%, including defaults and fallback chains for clientId/tenantId/workspace and the enum for version, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter detail of its own, but neither does it waste words; the schema fully carries this dimension.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full catalogue entry for one agent') and enumerates the payload (metadata, element types, availability/deployment state, blocked flag, raw body). This is clearly distinct from the sibling list/bulk tools like cs_list_org_agents and cs_block_org_agent.

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 (fetch detail for a single agent when the list rows are insufficient) and gives real constraints — 'Needs a Microsoft Agent 365 licence and is global-cloud only.' But it never explicitly says when to reach for this versus cs_list_org_agents or cs_review_agent, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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