Search OneDrive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds behavioral detail beyond that: the default page size, the compact return fields plus count and nextLink, the index-lag behavior for recently uploaded files, and the lack of filtering. This gives the agent a realistic model of what the call returns and what it may miss.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose and return shape, page size, explicit limitations and routing to an alternative, and a material freshness caveat. The most important scoping information is front-loaded before the caveats, and there is no filler or redundancy beyond the intentional schema reinforcement.

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?

Even without an output schema or rich sibling descriptions, the description tells the agent what to expect by referencing the compact fields of files_list_children plus count and nextLink. It covers pagination default, filtering limitations, when to use an alternative, and the indexing lag that affects result completeness. Nothing needed to call and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description reinforces the 'accepts only a search term' constraint and the page-size default, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already carries the full parameter documentation.

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 action ('Searches the whole of the signed-in user's OneDrive') and a specific matching behavior ('file names and indexed file contents'). It also differentiates from siblings by naming the return shape relative to files_list_children and by noting the endpoint accepts only a search term. This lets an agent distinguish it from files_list_children and search_query without opening the schema.

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 states what the endpoint does not support ('no date range, no file-type filter and no sort order') and routes the agent to an alternative ('list a folder with files_list_children instead'). The indexing-lag caveat also tells the agent when results may be incomplete, which is directly useful for choosing this tool over a direct list or recent-files tool.

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