entra_list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: pagination via `has_more` and `offset`, and the required Graph application permission User.Read.All. This is useful, actionable transparency, though it does not discuss rate limits or failure modes.

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 tight and front-loaded: one sentence states the core purpose, a second gives practical use cases, and the final two sentences add essential operational details. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

With a rich output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, typical use cases, pagination behavior, and required permissions, and is paired with a fully documented parameter schema. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents limit, offset, department, and enabled_only thoroughly, including exact-match semantics and the audit-waste nuance for enabled_only. The description adds some context around paging, but does not materially expand parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 states a specific verb and resource: "List accounts in the Microsoft 365 tenant with the licences each one holds." It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, especially by emphasizing the per-user license information and by framing it as a first step before deeper user-specific investigation.

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 gives concrete use cases: answering "who works here", "who is in Finance", and as a first step before looking at a specific person. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions relative to the sibling tools, so it stops just short of a 5.

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