search_messages

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 'using Microsoft Search' but fails to mention any behavior traits such as rate limits, result format, or permissions needed. This leaves the agent without critical information about how the search operates.

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 very short and to the point, but it is a single phrase that lacks a full sentence structure. It is concise but could be improved with more informative phrasing without adding length.

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 that this is a search tool with no output schema and only one parameter, the description should explain what the search returns, any limitations, and scope. It fails to provide these details, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the query parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter name. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers it adequately.

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 'Search' and the resource 'all Teams messages', which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that list messages in specific channels or chats. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., personal vs. team messages), but overall the purpose is clear.

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 list_channel_messages or list_chat_messages. An explicit note about when to use this across all messages vs. specific contexts would significantly improve agent decision-making.

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