office_search_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that the search is confined to an 'allowed directory', but says nothing about recursion default, result caps, or truncation behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it spends its single clause on orchestrator motivation rather than on the undocumented parameters.

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?

For a read-only search tool with four parameters and no output schema, the definition is only partially complete: it omits what a result entry looks like, whether paths are returned, and how recursion and maxResults interact. Adequate but with clear gaps given the low schema coverage.

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 only 25% - just the directory parameter is documented. The description does map the file types to the extensions parameter, but recursive (default true) and maxResults (default 500, max 5000) are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving meaningful behavior to guesswork.

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 ('Find'), the exact resource types (XLSX, DOCX, PPTX), and the scope ('inside an allowed directory'), so the agent knows precisely what operation it is. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like office_list_open_files, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

The clause 'so an orchestrator can discover relevant Office documents' implies a discovery use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to any alternative such as office_list_open_files or office_inspect_file. The agent is left to infer selection criteria.

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