teams_search_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds only that search is powered by 'Microsoft Search', which is a useful hint about behavior, but it says nothing about result scope, permissions required, or how chat vs channel messages are combined.

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 single sentence is short but not concise in a useful sense: it terminates with a dangling preposition and a colon, i.e. it is under-specified rather than economical. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the resource name.

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?

A zero-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool is simple, but the description is a truncated fragment that never finishes its clause. An agent cannot tell what it may search by or what it receives back, so it is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. However, the description explicitly opens a parameter clause ('...with Microsoft Search: by...') that is never completed and corresponds to no schema properties, which introduces confusion rather than meaning. This drops it to 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Searches the Microsoft Teams chat and channel messages') and identifies the backend (Microsoft Search), so the basic action is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as teams_read_chat_messages, teams_read_channel_messages, or search_messages, and the sentence is truncated mid-thought ('by...'), leaving the scope ambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no condition that would tell an agent to pick this tool over teams_read_channel_messages or teams_read_chat_messages. The dangling 'by...' hints at filtering criteria but never states them.

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