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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond annotations: it requires authentication permissions, and it sends a preview first rather than directly sending, requiring confirm=true to complete the send. This is important for an agent to know to manage user confirmation. Annotations only indicate it's not read-only and not destructive, so the description adds crucial 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?

The description is two sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by prerequisites and behavioral flow. No redundant information; each clause adds value.

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 output schema, annotations, and clear input schema, the description provides all necessary contextual information: purpose, permissions, dependencies on list tools, and the preview/confirm workflow. It is complete for an agent to use the 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?

Input schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), including the source of team_id/channel_id and the meaning of confirm. The description reiterates these points but doesn't add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline is 3 given high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as sending a text message to a Microsoft Teams channel, using a specific verb ('sends') and resource ('text message to a Microsoft Teams channel'). This distinguishes it from related tools like teams_send_message, which likely handles chat messages. It also provides the channel context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage guidance by specifying that team_id and channel_id must come from teams_list_teams/teams_list_channels, and that connect_m365_account is required with specific permissions. It also explains the preview-then-confirm flow. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool (e.g., for chat messages), so it lacks explicit exclusion.

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