Search My OneDrive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the required delegated Files.Read permission and the user scope (files visible to the signed-in user), which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether the search covers file content or just names, nor does it mention pagination or result format. This is somewhat thin for an unannotated tool.

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 very concise: two short sentences, with the first conveying the core purpose and the second providing multilingual support hints. No wasted words, and the structure front-loads the essential information.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description covers permission, user scope, and language support. However, it omits behavior around result ordering, whether full-text search is supported, and any error scenarios. Given the low complexity, this is adequate but not rich; a 3 reflects that the description does not fully stand alone.

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 for parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a note about Chinese intents and '按文件名搜索' (search by filename), but this largely echoes the schema's phrase 'file name or document keyword.' It provides minimal additional semantic value beyond 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?

The description states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Search') and a clearly defined resource ('files visible to the signed-in user in OneDrive'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like sharepoint_search_drive_items and search_files by scoping to the user's own OneDrive. The permission requirement adds further specificity.

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 for when to use the tool: searching the signed-in user's own OneDrive files. It implies a distinction from SharePoint or general file searches, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Since context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are not explicitly stated, a 4 is appropriate.

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