search-sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by limiting results to sites the signed-in user can access, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as result ordering, truncation wording, or what a missing match returns. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler or repetition. The key scoping detail, 'the signed-in user can access,' is included up front, and the keyword mechanism is stated efficiently.

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 read-only search tool, the description plus the richly commented input schema and annotations provide enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. There is no output schema, so return-value details are not specified, but the simple search behavior and pagination parameters make this a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 input schema already provides detailed semantics for query, cursor, and maxItems, including pagination behavior via nextCursor. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the general 'by keyword' phrasing, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search SharePoint sites the signed-in user can access, by keyword.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling search tools like search-drive-items, search-my-drive, search-onenote-pages, and search-m365 by scoping it to user-accessible SharePoint sites.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need to find SharePoint sites accessible to the signed-in user via a keyword. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended usage is evident and ambiguous scenarios are unlikely.

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