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 only states 'Search OneDrive files' and does not mention expected behavior such as read-only operation, result limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on no results. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 'Search OneDrive files.' It is front-loaded and contains no filler; every word is relevant. Although sparse, it is appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but leaves key gaps. It does not explain whether the search covers file contents or only file names/metadata, nor what the return value looks like. This prevents it from being fully complete.

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 has one required 'q' string with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'Search OneDrive files' implies 'q' is the search query, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not explicitly define the parameter's format or semantics, making it minimally adequate.

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 clearly states the tool searches OneDrive files, specifying the resource (OneDrive) and action (search). It distinguishes from sibling search_drive by naming OneDrive, though it lacks details on what aspects of files are searched (e.g., content vs. name), so it falls short of a fully differentiated 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_drive or read_onedrive_file. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer applicable scenarios from the tool name alone.

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