Search the Microsoft 365 roadmap

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 adds 'Returns summaries; call get_roadmap_item for the full description,' which reveals a key behavioral trait: results are condensed rather than full entries. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or rate limits, but for a search tool, this is reasonably informative.

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, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and every phrase adds value. It succinctly conveys what the tool does, how to filter, and what output to expect, with no redundancy.

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 search tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior: searching, filtering, and returning summaries. It also points to get_roadmap_item for full details, completing the workflow. It could mention default limits or result ordering, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity of the tool.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all 6 parameters, covering 100% of them. The description's mention of filtering by product, status, cloud instance, or platform merely restates the schema and adds no new semantic detail. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 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's purpose: 'Search roadmap features by free text and filter by product, status, cloud instance or platform.' This specifies a distinct verb (search), a resource (roadmap features), and the scope (free text and filters), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_roadmap_item, which retrieves full details.

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 explicit guidance for when to use an alternative: 'call get_roadmap_item for the full description.' This clarifies a specific use case where search is not sufficient. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid search in favor of list_recent_changes or get_azure_status, though the context makes it implicit.

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