Search Teams Messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose authorization requirements and the search backend, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, describe return format, or mention any search limitations or side effects. Some transparency is present, but not comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a concise requirement statement and a Chinese intent line. It is appropriately sized and mostly efficient, though the Chinese intent section is somewhat redundant for an AI agent but adds multilingual value.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains purpose and role requirements, but does not clarify what the search returns, pagination behavior beyond schema hints, or the scope of the search (e.g., all Teams or joined teams). Adequate but with gaps.

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 is 100% and each parameter has a description ('Zero-based result offset', 'Number of search hits to return', 'Microsoft Search query string'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so a baseline 3 is 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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('Microsoft Teams chat messages'), and the method ('with Microsoft Search'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_mail or teams_list_chat_messages. The Chinese intents reinforce the purpose.

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 usage for searching Teams messages and provides a prerequisite ('Requires both mcp.search and mcp.teams roles'), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this vs alternatives like search_mail or teams_list_chat_messages, nor any exclusions. Thus, usage is implied rather than clearly guided.

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