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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is returned (name, web URL, who shared it), which is not in annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 consists of two efficient sentences: the first states purpose and output, the second gives a use case. No fluff, no repetition, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence carries weight.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, output, and usage. It could mention that results are limited by the 'top' parameter, but that is already in the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 only parameter 'top' is fully described in the input schema (max items, default 25). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraint beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, scoring 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 clearly states the tool lists files and folders shared with the user (Shared with me), identifies returned fields (name, web URL, sharer), and gives a specific use case (find documents shared by colleagues). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like onedrive_list_files (user's own files) and onedrive_search_files (search).

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 a clear use context ('find documents shared by colleagues'), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools. However, the intended usage is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate vs inappropriate scenarios given the sibling tool names.

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