search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are security-trimmed to the signed-in user and that authentication via device code occurs on first use. It does not mention rate limits or result format, but for a search tool the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 precise sentences with no filler. The core action and resource scope are front-loaded, followed by security and authentication notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter search tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: content scope, authorization behavior, and authentication side effect. It does not specify the exact result shape, but that is not required here.

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%: both 'query' and 'size' have clear type and description in the schema. The description adds broader context about scope and security but does not add meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Search'), a concrete resource ('Microsoft 365 content'), and narrows that to 'SharePoint/OneDrive files and list items.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from the sibling tools 'about' and 'governance_model.'

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 clearly communicates the intended context: searching Microsoft 365 content as the signed-in user. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, but the focus on security-trimmed M365 search makes the usage context obvious.

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