list_m365_people_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list', implying read-only, but fails to disclose any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or details about the data source. This is minimal transparency beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it is truncated, which may lose some detail. Still, it is concise and front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should provide hints about the return format or structure of the list. It does not mention fields like name, email, or relevance score. For a simple list tool, more completeness is expected to guide the agent.

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?

The input schema is empty with no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (default). The description adds meaning by explaining what the list is based on (communication patterns, collaboration), which is valuable context beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'people most relevant to you in Microsoft 365' based on communication patterns and collaboration. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'list_contacts' (general contacts) and 'search_m365_directory' (searchable directory).

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 for automatically generated relevance list but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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