Search Everything

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and operational profile. The description adds KQL syntax support, which is useful but doesn't go beyond basic query capabilities or discuss result behavior. With annotations carrying the core traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage guidance, then a concise feature note. No wasted words, and the structure prioritizes routing information first.

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 breadth and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key selection logic and parameter capabilities. It could mention result limits or pagination behavior, but annotations handle safety and idempotency, so it is largely complete for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (query, count, types). The description adds meaning by mentioning KQL support and providing a concrete example, which enriches the query parameter beyond the schema's generic description.

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 explicitly states the verb (search) and resource (Microsoft 365: mail, Teams chats, calendar events, OneDrive files, SharePoint), and it clearly distinguishes itself from the per-area sibling tools by naming ms_mail, ms_chat, and ms_files as alternatives.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use this when you do not already know where something lives' and directs to per-area tools when the location is known. This directly addresses tool selection among siblings.

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