teams_search_messages

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states this is a search operation over history and specifies the scope, but does not disclose limitations such as whether channels are excluded, authentication requirements, or the exact return format.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is concise and to the point, though it appears truncated (ends mid-word 'sender n...'), which slightly reduces polish.

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 with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core aspects: what is searched (chat and DM history), the search criteria, and the all-conversations scope. It does not explain return values, but that gap is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful semantics by stating that searching happens by text and sender, even though no schema properties exist. This helps an agent understand the intended query syntax despite the empty 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Searches') and names the exact resource ('Microsoft Teams chat and direct-message history') with an explicit scope ('all conversations at once'). It also indicates the search criteria (by text, sender). This clearly distinguishes it from tools like teams_read_chat_messages or search_messages.

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 implies an appropriate use case: searching across all Teams chats and DMs at once rather than reading a specific chat. However, it does not explicitly exclude channel messages or name alternatives like teams_read_chat_messages for targeted reads, so it provides only implied guidance.

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