Get Outlook Brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the setup prerequisite (AZURE_CLIENT_ID must be set in .env), which is real operational context, but says nothing about read-only nature, latency, or failure behavior when the credential is missing.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the sibling comparison and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three params are documented in the schema. The description covers purpose, sibling routing, and the credential prerequisite; only richer behavioral detail (e.g., what happens without AZURE_CLIENT_ID) is missing.

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 meeting_id, hours_ahead, and meeting_title are already fully documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., priority between meeting_id and meeting_title) beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and resource (a meeting brief) plus the data source (Outlook/Microsoft 365 calendar). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_meeting_brief by naming the differing backend (Google Calendar vs Microsoft 365).

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?

Points the agent at the alternative (get_meeting_brief) and gives the selecting condition (Microsoft 365 vs Google Calendar) plus a prerequisite (AZURE_CLIENT_ID in .env). It stops short of an explicit when-not statement, but the routing condition is clear.

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