Conectar ao Outlook

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it opens the user's browser, waits for interaction, supports MFA and organization policies, and even instructs how to phrase the action to the user (avoiding OAuth/MSAL terminology). It complements the openWorldHint rather than contradicting it, and there is no annotation contradiction.

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 two tight sentences: the first front-loads the core behavior, and the second provides the usage condition and user-facing guidance. Every clause earns its place, and no redundant or filler text is present.

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 authentication/connection tool, the description is complete: it says what it does, when to invoke it, what the user will experience, and how to describe the action to the user. No output schema is needed, and the tool's side-effectful nature is clearly communicated via description and annotations together.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema coverage gap. A 5 would require it to add value where there is nothing to add.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inicia a conexão com o Outlook/Microsoft 365 do usuário' and details the concrete action of opening the Windows default browser for Microsoft login. It clearly distinguishes this connection/setup tool from the many Outlook action siblings and from outlook_status/outlook_desconectar.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use quando o usuário pedir algo do Outlook e outlook_status disser que ainda não está conectado.' This provides a clear decision rule and references the relevant sibling tool. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, though the condition strongly implies them, so it falls just short of a perfect 5.

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