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 mentions the default scope (all folders) and the ability to limit scope, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the search results look like. For a search tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that both add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important behavioral context about default folder scope. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 search tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are ordered, whether it supports complex queries, or any limitations. The agent would need to guess about the output format and many behavioral aspects.

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 all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the default folder behavior, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how parameters interact or search logic. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search for emails using various criteria,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling 'list-emails' by emphasizing search functionality rather than simple listing, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling.

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 some usage context by stating 'Searches across ALL folders... by default' and 'Specify folder to limit scope,' which gives guidance on when to use the folder parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-emails' or provide any exclusion criteria.

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