search_onedrive

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose the return envelope and the paging contract, including that count is page-local. It omits scope questions an agent would care about, such as permission/auth requirements and whether shared or other-drive content is included.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then compact per-argument notes, then a returns/paging paragraph. Every line carries information the schema does not, and there is no filler.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers parameters, return shape, and the pagination loop. The remaining gap is operational context — auth scope and what corpus is searched — which no other structured field supplies.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: query is defined as Graph full-text over names and content, top is bounded at 1-200 with a default of 20, and next_link is explained as a continuation that requires holding query and top constant — a constraint absent from the schema.

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 and resource plus the match surface ('by name or content match'), which distinguishes it from list_folder's enumeration role. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or when enumeration beats searching.

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?

Usage is implied: use it when you have search text. The only explicit procedural guidance concerns pagination ('Repeat with next_link until has_more is false'), not tool selection against list_folder or get_item_metadata. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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