Search SharePoint Library

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful permission requirement and scopes the search to a document library. Yet it does not disclose behavior around pagination, whether content or metadata is searched, or return characteristics, leaving notable gaps 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Chinese intent mapping adds localization value relevant to potential users, though it is somewhat redundant. Overall, it is brief and structured without unnecessary verbosity.

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 schema covers parameters and the description covers scope and permission, which is adequate for a simple search tool. However, with no output schema, it does not describe return values or pagination behavior, and it does not differentiate from sibling search tools, leaving some contextual 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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (driveId, query, top), with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Search files and folders in a SharePoint document library', giving a specific action (search) and resource (SharePoint document library). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sharepoint_search_sites (site-level search) and sharepoint_list_drive_items (listing without keyword search).

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 provides clear context—searching in a SharePoint library—and includes a meaningful prerequisite ('Requires delegated Files.Read.All'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like drive_search_items or sharepoint_search_sites, so it lacks explicit when/alternatives guidance.

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