Search Available Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are limited to the user's authorized tools, top hits carry input schemas, and intent can be expressed in either language. It does not mention result limits/pagination or ranking behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 capability statement and the exclusion clause are front-loaded in a single efficient sentence. The trailing Chinese-language phrase list ('搜索可用工具, 查找能完成任务的工具...') is somewhat redundant filler, which keeps it from a 5.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (top-ranked tools with embedded input schemas) and the scope of the search corpus. It omits anything about result volume limits, ranking or empty-result behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so limit, query, category and schemaCount are already documented with defaults, bounds and purpose. The description restates the query's language flexibility and the schema-embedding behavior of results, but adds no syntax, format or filtering nuance beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search the signed-in user's authorized Microsoft 365 tools') and scopes it by intent language (English or Chinese). It also carves out the boundary against the directly exposed siblings by listing the capability areas it covers that they do not.

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?

It states exactly when to reach for it ('for anything the directly exposed tools do not cover') and gives concrete examples (sending, scheduling, OneDrive/SharePoint, contacts, users). It also routes the agent away from gateway_get_tool_schema by noting top results carry their input schema, so the alternative tool is explicitly made unnecessary.

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