Search SharePoint Content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses an important prerequisite: 'Requires both mcp.search and mcp.sharepoint roles.' This is a behavioral context (auth requirement). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention result pagination behavior, or note any access limitations beyond the role requirement. The role note adds value, but other behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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 concise, consisting of a core sentence, a role requirement, and a set of Chinese intent phrases. While the Chinese portion might be unnecessary for some users, it is not verbose and provides alternative phrasings for multilingual intent matching. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not describe what the response contains, how to paginate through results, or any query syntax nuances. With sibling tools like search_files and sharepoint_search_sites, more context on result shape or usage boundaries is needed. The description feels thin for a 4-parameter 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters (query, entityType, from, size), so the schema already documents parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond what is in the schema, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the action: 'Search SharePoint sites or list items with Microsoft Search.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope (sites or list items) distinguishes it from sibling tools like sharepoint_search_sites and sharepoint_search_drive_items. The Chinese intent examples further clarify the intended usage.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sharepoint_search_sites or search_files. It does not mention criteria for choosing this tool over search_mail or search_teams, nor any exclusions. The Chinese intents hint at use cases but do not contrast with sibling tools.

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