entra_find_stale_accounts

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it joins user list, sign-in activity, and licence SKUs; lists disabled accounts first as pure waste; requires specific Graph permissions; and fails gracefully with an explanatory message when Entra ID P1 is missing. This is rich, non-obvious context.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, business question, behavior, ordering, and prerequisites. The description is front-loaded with the core function and remains compact despite covering several important behaviors.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only reporting tool: it states what data is joined, what output is produced, what permissions are needed, and the tenant licensing prerequisite. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear meaning. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies without additional credit.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find accounts that have not signed in recently and the licences they hold.' It then clarifies the real-world question it answers and explains the data join, making it clearly distinct from siblings like entra_list_users or entra_get_license_usage.

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 explicitly frames when to use the tool: it answers 'which licences are we paying for that nobody uses?' and describes the reporting output. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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