search-my-drive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the meaningful context that shared items are included and matching is by keyword, but it does not go further into result or pagination 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 compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the tool's purpose and scope efficiently while leaving detailed parameter documentation to the schema.

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 strong annotations and fully described schema, the description is mostly sufficient for a simple search tool. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation among the large set of sibling search tools, which could affect tool selection in ambiguous cases.

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%, and the maxItems/cursor parameters are already richly documented in the schema. The description only restates the keyword concept and does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('the user's OneDrive'), and an important scope extension ('items shared with them'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from broader sibling searches like search-m365, search-sites, and search-drive-items.

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 intended scope is implied by 'the user's OneDrive', but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of the many sibling search tools, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions. An agent could infer usage, but the routing guidance is left implicit.

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