m365_get_vacation_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is checked (OOF and forwarding rules) and implies a read-only operation, but does not state permissions, safety, or that it has no side effects. The disclosure is minimally adequate for a read tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's scope and checked items.

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 existence of an output schema means return values are covered, and the description adequately names the checked settings. However, it omits usage guidance and parameter context, leaving notable gaps for agent invocation despite the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented user_upn parameter. It says 'for a mailbox' but never names or explains the required UPN argument, adding no semantic detail beyond the schema's bare type.

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 ('Checks') and two distinct resources: OOF/automatic reply and vacation forwarding rules, scoped to a mailbox. The read-only nature implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like m365_configure_vacation and m365_disable_vacation, though it does not explicitly name 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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no alternatives. It does not tell the agent to use this tool for inspecting vacation settings vs. m365_configure_vacation for changing them.

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