search_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: hybrid BM25-style plus semantic search fused by Reciprocal Rank Fusion, and automatic degradation to keyword-only without an OpenAI key. It still omits permissions, rate limits, and result-return details, but it adds substantive behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose before technical search details. It is appropriately sized, though the semicolon-heavy structure is slightly run-on.

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?

The description covers purpose, source coverage, search behavior, and fallback behavior, which is enough to understand invocation context. However, with no output schema and no explanation of returned result shape, it is only partially complete for interpreting or using search results.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond noting hybrid degradation, which is also covered in the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: searching Microsoft Graph API change history. It also names the search modes and source coverage, making the purpose clear, although it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_recent_changes or get_object_history.

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 implies usage for natural-language or keyword queries across all change-history sources, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_recent_changes, get_object_history, or get_change_detail. The usage context is present but not fully explicit.

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