get_active_user_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool gets a report and accepts a period, but it does not describe the report's fields, response format, permissions needed, or any pagination or filtering behavior. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure for a reporting tool.

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 concise sentence with the operation and resource front-loaded, followed by the key period values. There is no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately short, though a bit unstructured.

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 one-parameter read-only report tool, the description is minimally viable: it names the report and lists accepted period values. However, it lacks output format details, usage context, and differentiation from sibling usage-report tools, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill those gaps. It is adequate for a basic call but not complete for confident tool selection.

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%, but the description partially compensates by listing the allowed period values: 'D7', 'D30', 'D90', 'D180'. It does not explain what those periods semantically represent beyond the obvious day abbreviations, so the compensation is incomplete. The description adds value but leaves parameter meaning mostly inferred.

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 and resource, 'Get M365 active user detail report', making the tool's core function immediately clear. It also enumerates period values, which adds specificity. However, it does not contrast with sibling report tools like get_sharepoint_usage or get_mailbox_usage, so it is not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling reporting tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the bare description. An agent would have to infer selection entirely from the tool name and report title.

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