search_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the query language is KQL and that entity_types is a comma-separated list, but it says nothing about pagination, result grouping across entity types, authentication needs, rate limits, or ordering behavior.

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: 'Unified Microsoft Search (KQL)' immediately establishes the tool's role, followed by a directly usable entity_types list. There is no wasted wording, though it is terse enough that a fully formed sentence would improve structure.

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 an unannotated, no-output-schema tool with three parameters, the description provides the essential query language and allowed entity scopes, making it minimally viable. It lacks explicit guidance on result organization, pagination, KQL expression examples, and when to choose alternative search tools, which are clear 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains the entity_types parameter's format and valid values, and the KQL mention clarifies the nature of the query parameter. It does not document size and gives no KQL examples, but query and size are relatively self-explanatory.

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 identifies a unified search operation using KQL and enumerates the entity types it covers (message, driveItem, site, listItem, person, event), which distinguishes it from targeted siblings like search_files, search_messages, search_sites, and people_search. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement such as 'Searches across...', so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 word 'Unified' and the listed entity types imply this tool is the cross-entity search option, which is useful context among many specialized search siblings. Still, the description never explicitly says when to prefer search_query over search_files, search_messages, people_search, or search_external, nor does it give any exclusions or prerequisites.

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