graph_answer_identity_question

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

Beyond the annotations, which already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds important operational traits: it respects source separation between Microsoft Graph and Azure APIs, returns explicit errors when a capability is missing or permission is lacking, and never fabricates Graph calls. This meaningfully reduces ambiguity about failure modes and trust boundaries.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then supports it with examples and constraints. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage examples, source boundaries, error behavior, and the anti-hallucination guarantee. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool.

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 complex natural-language query behavior, rich annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, source boundaries, and error behavior well. It still leaves the 'limit' parameter unexplained and does not describe the general shape of returned results, which are minor but real gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'question' parameter as a natural-language identity question and provides examples, but it completely omits the 'limit' parameter and its default behavior. This is partial compensation only.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it interprets a natural-language identity question, selects the correct capability, and executes a validated query. It also scopes the source to Microsoft Graph for identity/directory and Azure APIs for Azure RBAC/resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling natural-language query tools such as iam_natural_language_query or pim_natural_language_query.

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?

It gives clear usage context with concrete examples of open identity questions, such as Global Administrator holders and Directory.ReadWrite.All applications. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the examples provide strong context for selection.

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