List agents in 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 it does well: it declares the operation read-only, explains the authentication model, notes the licence requirement, restricts to global cloud, and even flags that it is unverified against a live tenant. This far exceeds basic disclosure and gives the agent important expectations about safety and reliability.

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 dense but remarkably efficient: every sentence contributes either scope, defaults, auth context, or caveats, and the most important detail is front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, and the length is justified by the behavioural caveats that are not present in structured fields.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, defaults, auth, scope, licensing, and limitations. It could go further by describing the return shape or pagination cap details, but the input schema already documents the parameters and the operational caveats are well covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value beyond the schema: it explains the platform default, the meaning of 'all', and positions the tool against the Graph/Dataverse auth boundary. It does not elaborate on every parameter, but with full schema coverage that is not necessary.

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 names a specific verb (list), a specific resource (agents in the organisation's Microsoft 365 catalogue), and a clear scope ('across environments'). It also differentiates from Power Platform-related siblings by highlighting what this tool sees that Power Platform cannot, so an agent can distinguish it from cs_list_agents without opening the schema.

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 gives concrete usage context: it defaults to Copilot Studio agents, requires 'platform: all' for the full catalogue, mentions a separate Graph sign-in via cs_login scope 'graph', and states the licence and cloud restrictions. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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