outlook_check_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only states that authentication and connection status are checked. It does not detail side effects, required infrastructure, or what failure states look like, though 'status check' implies a read-only diagnostic action and no data mutation.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter status check with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values or parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role, though it could add one line about using it when other Outlook calls fail.

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 schema already provides complete parameter coverage. The description appropriately requires no parameter explanation, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 identifies a specific verb-resource pairing: 'check' the 'Microsoft 365 Outlook authentication and connection status.' This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which perform message, calendar, or folder operations rather than status verification.

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 makes clear that this tool is for verifying authentication and connectivity, which is naturally understood as a diagnostic/pre-flight check among the other Outlook operations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the use case is evident given the zero-parameter, status-oriented design.

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