searchOfficeDocs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing what the search returns, how 'matching' is determined (e.g., title vs. content, fuzzy vs. exact), or any potential limitations. This lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about the tool's runtime 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No extraneous information or filler is present.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It does not explain what the search results look like, whether it returns full documents or metadata, or any search behavior specifics. This is a noticeable shortcoming for an agent that must invoke the tool correctly and interpret 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?

The input schema has a single parameter 'query' with the description 'Search query to find matching Office documents.' The tool description's mention of a 'specific query string' adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Searches for Office documents matching a specific query string.' It uses a specific verb ('Searches'), identifies the resource ('Office documents'), and describes the scope ('matching a specific query string'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like listOfficeDocs or readOfficeDoc.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or differentiate from sibling tools such as listOfficeDocs or recentOfficeDocs. Usage must be inferred solely from the tool's name and description, which is insufficient.

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