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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating the return payload ('names and ids only — no cell data'), the sort order ('most recently changed first'), and the access scope ('workbooks outside the folders you have access to are not returned'). It omits pagination and rate limits, but for a simple listing tool this is sufficient.

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 three sentences with zero fluff. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by return details and search behavior. Every sentence 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 listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage points: what it returns, sorting, access limitations, and how to filter by name. It doesn't mention pagination or maximum results, but these are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity. Overall, an agent has enough to call it 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 coverage is 50%: the mailbox parameter has a schema description, while query does not. The description adds meaning for query by saying 'Pass a query to search by name', filling the gap. The mailbox parameter is already well described in the schema, so the overall parameter semantics are well supported.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource '.xlsx workbooks in the user's OneDrive', and specifies the return scope ('names and ids only'). It is distinct from siblings like list_onedrive_items or search_onedrive_items, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The sorting and query behavior add specificity, so it's above average.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It mentions the query usage but does not contrast with list_onedrive_items, search_onedrive_items, or get_excel_workbook. An agent would have to infer the tool's niche from its name and sibling list. This is a clear gap.

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