outlook_search_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits like scope (entire mailbox vs. folder), result ordering, and whether it returns more than basic fields. It only vaguely says 'Search emails across the mailbox' without details on pagination, sorting, or that it might return metadata not full content.

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 one sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it omits necessary information, but for what it has, it is appropriately sized with no filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema (though not detailed here) but lacks parameter descriptions entirely. Given the complexity of search queries and the need for usage guidelines, the description is insufficient. It fails to cover important aspects like how to incorporate sender or subject filters, and how 'top' interacts with the search.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description only mentions 'query terms, sender, subject, etc.' but does not explain the 'top' parameter, which likely controls the number of results. The query parameter's syntax or expected format is not clarified, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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 indicates the tool searches emails with query terms, sender, subject, etc., which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like outlook_list_messages and outlook_get_message, though it could more explicitly contrast with them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like outlook_list_messages or outlook_get_message. It does not state whether it searches the entire mailbox or if list_messages is for simpler listing. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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