search-m365

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the Graph grouping constraint and clarifies that results are pointers, not full content, which materially shapes follow-up calls. It could mention pagination or result limits, but those are already exposed in the schema.

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?

Three dense sentences: scope first, then query capability, then the crucial Graph constraint and follow-up behavior. No filler or redundancy; 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 cross-source search tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (pointers) and what to do next, and documents the important entity-type restriction. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit statement that full content retrieval requires a second request via the dedicated tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by documenting KQL support, giving an example query, and explaining the entity-type grouping rule beyond the schema's enum. It does not need to re-describe from/size because the schema already covers them.

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 ('search') and full scope ('Microsoft 365') across Mail, Calendar, Teams, SharePoint, and OneDrive, and is clearly a cross-source alternative to the many source-specific search siblings. The Graph combination restriction further reinforces what the tool spans.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: KQL is supported, which entity types can be combined in one call, and that message, event, and chatMessage must be searched separately. It also directs the agent to use dedicated tools for full content. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose search-m365 over dedicated source-specific search tools like search-drive-items or search-sites.

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