Search SharePoint Sites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention the required delegated permission (Sites.Read.All) and the visibility constraint (only sites visible to the signed-in user). However, it does not describe return format, pagination, ordering, or error behavior, leaving notable gaps.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Chinese intent phrases add useful multilingual context without bloating the text, and every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, auth requirement, and result scope. While it could mention return values or pagination, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% because both parameters (query and top) have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 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 the action ('Search'), the resource ('SharePoint sites'), and the scope ('visible to the signed-in user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sharepoint_search_drive_items (searches drive items) and sharepoint_get_site (retrieves a specific site).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (searching SharePoint sites) and includes example Chinese intents for common use cases. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, e.g., versus the broader search_sharepoint tool.

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