search_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: each entity type requires its own permission, and it lists the specific permissions needed (Mail.Read, Calendars.Read, etc.). This informs the agent about setup requirements. It also mentions KQL support, which is a behavioral feature. No contradictions with annotations.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives strategic usage guidance, and the third covers permissions. No filler or redundant content. Every sentence earns its place.

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 cross-workload search tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, when to use, permissions, and query language. It doesn't mention return format or pagination, but those are not critical for a search tool and the schema covers parameter constraints. The permission requirements are critical for actual invocation and are clearly stated. Minor gaps prevent a 5.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely repeats what the schema already documents (KQL example is present in both). It adds the permission-per-entity-type note, which is not directly tied to parameter meaning but provides useful context. Overall, the description does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond the thorough schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: search across Microsoft 365 in one call, enumerating specific workloads (email, calendar, files, SharePoint, people). This distinguishes it from siblings like mail_search or files_search by emphasizing the cross-workload scope. The verb 'search' is specific and the resource is clearly defined.

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?

Explicitly recommends this as the 'best first move for a vague request', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains that it spans workloads no other single tool covers, which implies when not to use it (for narrow, workload-specific queries). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, so a 4 is appropriate.

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