Outlook Assistant

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 key behaviors: it returns a short preview by default, allows fetching the complete body with a parameter, and specifies the preview length (255 chars). This covers output format and default behavior, though it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key usage detail. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core functionality and a critical behavioral aspect (preview vs. full body). However, it lacks details on error cases, authentication requirements, or response structure, which could be helpful for an agent.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the purpose of 'fullBody' and its default behavior, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Reads') and resource ('content of a specific email'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list-emails' by focusing on a single email rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search-emails' which might also return email content.

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 implies when to use this tool by mentioning 'Set fullBody=true to fetch the complete email body... Use for emails where the preview is insufficient,' which provides some contextual guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'search-emails' or 'list-emails' for reading content, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication.

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