directory_get_user

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned fields (job title, department, office, phone numbers, account details) and the required permission (User.Read.All). No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then return contents, then usage guidance and permissions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with high schema coverage and annotations, the description provides all essential context: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, an alternative, and a permission prerequisite. No output schema exists, so return value details are sufficiently 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%: the only parameter 'user' is already described as 'User email address or User Principal Name (UPN)'. The tool description repeats this ('by email or UPN') but adds no significant new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool gets a tenant user's full directory profile by email or UPN, including manager. It uses specific verbs and resources, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool people_get, which returns a similar profile without the manager lookup.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the address is known and the org-chart context matters.' It also names an alternative (people_get) and states the required permission (User.Read.All), making the usage context fully clear.

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