compliance_audit_recoverable_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only audit but never states that it is non-mutating, what permissions or role are required, or what identity formats are accepted. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the operational profile is thin.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it could trade a few words for the missing parameter and usage 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?

For a one-parameter read-only audit tool with an output schema, the description is close to sufficient, but it omits identity format and any permission/system requirements. Given its compliance context and many sibling audit tools, those gaps are meaningful.

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% for the single required 'identity' parameter. The description mentions 'mailbox' implicitly tying identity to a mailbox, but does not clarify whether it expects a UPN, SMTP address, GUID, or alias, leaving the one parameter under-specified.

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 states a specific verb (Audits) and specific resources (mailbox Recoverable Items and Deleted Items folder sizes and quotas), which clearly separates it from sibling audits like compliance_audit_retention_policies and compliance_audit_litigation_hold. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, keeping it just below a 5.

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 trailing phrase 'for compliance and storage hygiene' gestures at motivation but gives no when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many sibling audit/compliance tools. Nothing tells an agent when this tool is the right pick versus retention or litigation-hold audits.

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