Search Microsoft 365 Files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the auth requirements (both mcp.search and mcp.drive roles) and the scope (user-visible files). The Chinese phrase '全文搜索' indicates full-text search behavior, which adds meaningful context. It still omits return format or pagination, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 short (three sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. The Chinese intent examples add some redundancy but also provide useful alternative phrasings for an international audience. Overall, it is efficient, though the Chinese sentence repeats some information from the first sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It covers scope, permissions, and search modality but does not describe the result structure or how pagination works via from/size. This is a noticeable gap for a search tool.

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%, with all three parameters (query, from, size) already described in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the exact resource ('files visible to the signed-in user across OneDrive and Microsoft 365'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_mail, search_calendar, and search_teams by specifying the file scope.

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 states a clear context: files visible to the signed-in user across OneDrive and Microsoft 365. It also provides a prerequisite (requires both mcp.search and mcp.drive roles), which helps the agent decide when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like drive_search_items for OneDrive-only searches.

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