execute_graph_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds context about the search scope ('Microsoft 365 content') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, result formats, or pagination details. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate—the description adds some value but not rich behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output details (no output schema), usage guidance, and behavioral nuances. However, annotations cover safety, and schema coverage is high, so it meets a minimum viable standard.

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 description coverage is 88%, meaning most parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'advanced search queries' and lists content types, which hints at the 'entityTypes' and 'queryString' parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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: 'Execute advanced search queries across Microsoft 365 content including emails, files, messages, and calendar events.' It specifies the verb ('execute'), resource ('search queries'), and scope ('Microsoft 365 content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_audit_log' or 'execute_delta_query', which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_audit_log' or 'execute_delta_query', nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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