search_schema_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a decent job: it discloses the return shape ({id, kind, label, sub}) and the ranking rule (prefix matches first), which are behavioral traits an agent can't infer elsewhere. It omits any note on cost, scope coverage, or what happens on zero matches.

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?

Two tight sentences with the search scope front-loaded, followed by the downstream-use hint and return contract. No filler or restatement of the tool 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by specifying the returned fields and ordering, which is the key missing piece for a search tool. Minor gaps remain around limit behavior and empty-result handling, but nothing essential to invoking it is absent.

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 50%: kinds and endpoint are documented in the schema, and the description conceptually maps the kind set ('entity types, permission scopes, Entra roles'). It adds nothing about the query string's minimum length or the limit parameter's cap, so half the parameters remain solely schema-defined — baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (name search) and enumerates the three object kinds searched (Graph entity types, permission scopes, Entra roles), plus the resolution behavior (fuzzy names to canonical node ids). This clearly distinguishes it from change-oriented siblings like search_changes and 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?

Explicitly frames the output as input to visualize_schema_graph / expand_schema_node, which tells an agent when this tool is the right first step. However, it doesn't state when-not-to-use or contrast with search_changes directly, so the routing is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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