list_disabled_users_with_active_roles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds scope value by restricting to Entra ID, disabled accounts, and direct (non-group-derived) assignments, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether tenants are queried with elevated permissions.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the discriminating filter ('diretos ativos') is placed at the end where it does the most routing work.

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-only listing tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers what is enumerated but omits any hint of output shape, result size, or pagination behavior tied to the undocumented limit parameter.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter (default 20) is never mentioned in the description, so no meaning is added beyond the schema. However, the parameter is a conventional result-cap integer, which keeps this near the baseline rather than a clear failure.

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 (lista), resource (usuários desabilitados no Entra ID) and a precise qualifying condition (que ainda possuem role assignments diretos ativos). The word 'diretos' distinguishes it from assignment-inheriting siblings such as list_users_with_direct_permissions and list_orphan_azure_role_assignments.

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 condition it targets (disabled accounts holding live direct assignments) implies a dormant-privilege audit use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of overlapping siblings like list_users_with_direct_permissions, and no prerequisite guidance.

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