search_doings_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions searching via Microsoft Graph and the nature of documents, but lacks disclosure of side effects, limitations (e.g., pagination, read-only nature), or any behavioral traits beyond the source characterization.

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 short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource in the first sentence and adds distinguishing context in the second, making it concise and efficient.

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?

With no output schema and minimal parameter descriptions, the description fails to cover return values, behavior, or enough context for a search tool with three parameters. It lacks details on sorting, filtering, or results format, leaving significant gaps.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific information. The parameter names 'query', 'maxDocuments', and 'fetchTopDocuments' are somewhat self-explanatory, but 'fetchTopDocuments' remains ambiguous, and the description does not clarify any parameter semantics.

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 states the tool searches Doings SharePoint knowledge via Microsoft Graph, clearly identifying the verb 'searches' and resource 'Doings SharePoint knowledge'. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'search_research_evidence' by noting internal documents are treated as experience/IP, not academic evidence.

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 implies usage for internal knowledge searches and contrasts with academic evidence, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'search_research_evidence' or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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