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

Annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds value beyond them by disclosing recursive traversal, the max_results cap, and default of 50. It stops short of deeper behavior like case sensitivity or path normalization, but the added detail is meaningful.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a direct operational tip. No wasted words; every clause earns its place.

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 search tool with rich output schema and full parameter coverage, the description sufficiently explains the behavior, limits, and tuning approach. It does not need to describe return values because an output schema exists.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a relationship between root and max_results ('raise max_results or narrow the root for more'), which helps agents understand how to achieve broader or narrower searches beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 action ('Searches for files by name') and resource ('OneDrive directory'), with an important scoping detail ('recursive'). It clearly distinguishes this from related tools like onedrive_list_files by focusing on filename search semantics.

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 when-to-use context: searching by filename rather than listing. It also gives actionable tuning guidance ('raise max_results or narrow the root for more'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, which would push it higher.

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