get_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses the meaning of key fields (account_enabled, on_premises_sync_enabled, licenses_capped), the graceful degradation of sign_in_activity without the required permission, and that a nonexistent account returns {'found': false} rather than an error. It also states the read-only nature and exact UPN requirement. No contradictions.

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?

Though long, the description is densely packed with prerequisite triage knowledge—field semantics, permission nuances, and edge cases—and every sentence adds value. It is structured with clear paragraphs and code-formatting for fields, making it scannable. The front-loaded purpose statement ensures the agent quickly knows what the tool does.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields (account_enabled, last_password_change_date_time, on_premises_sync_enabled, licenses, licenses_capped, sign_in_activity), their meanings, and expected edge behavior. It also describes permission requirements and the graceful degradation path. Nothing an agent needs to call it and interpret results is missing.

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 for the only parameter, upn, is 0%, but the description fully compensates: 'Args: upn: The account's userPrincipalName, e.g. "user@example.edu".' It also stresses the need for an exact match, not display name. This gives the agent everything needed to format the argument correctly.

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 opens with 'One account's identity/lifecycle state -- the first thing to check on any triage report.' This is a specific verb+resource (get identity/lifecycle state) and explicitly positions it as the initial step, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on sign-in logs, auth methods, or audits. The purpose is unmistakable and actionable.

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 gives clear context: 'first thing to check' and instructs to 'stop there' if account_enabled=false. It also explains a common pattern for stale passwords. However, it never explicitly names alternative tools or states when not to use this tool (e.g., 'for auth methods, use get_user_auth_methods'). The order is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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