List agents in the Microsoft 365 catalogue

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: read-only, authenticates via Microsoft Graph with a separate cs_login 'graph' scope, requires a Microsoft Agent 365 licence, is global-cloud only, and is flagged 'Unverified against a live tenant'. It omits volume/paging-throttling behavior (beyond schema notes) and any rate-limit caveat, so it stops short of 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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the scope and the differentiating return fields before moving to defaults, safety, auth and caveats. Every sentence carries non-redundant information; nothing is padding.

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 an 11-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies scope, defaults, auth path, licensing, cloud constraint and an honesty caveat, plus a sketch of returned fields. It is close to complete; the only real gap is behavior under large catalogues (paging caps, throttling), which the schema mentions only in passing.

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% and all 11 parameters — including the four enums — are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the platform default/all semantics already present in the schema and adds no syntax or interaction detail (e.g. how top, allPages and filter combine) beyond what structured fields provide.

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 (list) and a precisely scoped resource (every agent in the organisation's Microsoft 365 catalogue, across environments), and lists the distinguishing return fields — availability audience, deployment location, blocked status — that set it apart from the Dataverse-scoped cs_list_agents. The phrase 'the things Power Platform cannot see' implicitly but effectively separates it from its nearest sibling.

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?

Gives a concrete default ('Defaults to agents built in Copilot Studio; pass platform: all') and states prerequisites (cs_login graph scope, Agent 365 licence, global cloud only), which is useful context. However, it never says when to choose this over cs_list_agents, cs_get_org_agent, or the cs_admin_list_* family, leaving the routing decision to inference from the sibling names.

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