m365_users_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds a behavioral nuance—defaulting to 'me' when no user is specified—which is not present in the annotations. This is useful contextual information beyond the structured metadata.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, the resource, and the default behavior with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and when the parameter can be omitted. The annotations cover safety, and the tool's purpose is self-explanatory without needing to enumerate profile fields.

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 fully describes the only parameter ('User email or ID (defaults to 'me')'), with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description essentially reiterates this default behavior without adding new semantic details, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('user's profile') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like m365_users_list (which lists users) and m365_users_manager (which gets the manager). It also notes the default behavior when no user is specified, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to fetch a single user's profile, with the convenience of defaulting to your own profile. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide between this and the related list/manager tools.

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