m365_search

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 effectively describes what the tool returns ('Returns file metadata, previews, URLs—not full content') and its scope ('OneDrive only'), which are crucial behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some 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 well-structured and concise, with clear sections for purpose, usage guidelines, and limitations. Every sentence adds value, such as distinguishing from m365_retrieve and specifying the search scope, without unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, limitations, and behavioral traits. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more details on the return format (e.g., structure of metadata), though it does mention what is returned (metadata, previews, URLs).

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the hybrid search approach ('semantic + keyword hybrid search') and providing usage examples in the 'Use for' section, which enhances understanding beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explicitly detail parameter interactions or advanced usage scenarios.

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: 'Find documents in OneDrive using semantic + keyword hybrid search.' It specifies the resource (documents in OneDrive) and the method (semantic + keyword hybrid search), distinguishing it from sibling tools like m365_retrieve, which retrieves actual content rather than metadata.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., 'Discovering relevant files,' 'Finding documents by topic when you don't know exact names') and when to use an alternative ('Use m365_retrieve instead when: You need actual document content, You want text for analysis'). It also mentions a limitation ('OneDrive only (SharePoint search coming)'), offering clear context for usage.

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