search_copilot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a timeout parameter but doesn't explain what happens during or after the search (e.g., response format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 brief and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter explanations). Overall, it's efficient with little waste, though not perfectly organized.

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?

Given the complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or how results are returned, which are critical for an AI agent to use the tool effectively. This leaves key 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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It lists the parameters (query and timeout) and provides a default for timeout, but doesn't offer additional context like query formatting examples or timeout implications. Since the schema already documents these well, 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 the tool's purpose as 'Microsoft Copilot search' with the verb 'search' and resource 'Microsoft Copilot', making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_bing_search or search_chatgpt, which are also search tools but for different services, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tools search_bing_search or search_chatgpt. It lacks context on specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear direction for selection among similar tools.

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