outlook_get_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed information' but does not explain what 'detailed' includes (e.g., headers, body, attachments), whether it marks the email as read, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to inform safe invocation.

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 sentence, which is concise but under-informative for a tool with 4 parameters. It lacks any structure (e.g., bullet points or examples) and does not front-load critical details like which parameter is required. Every sentence should add value, but this does not earn its place for a parameterized tool.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return format or content. It only says 'detailed information'—vague. The agent needs to know if the response includes body, attachments, or headers. Also, truncation parameters are not contextualized. The description is incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 100% coverage—each parameter has a description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify defaults (truncate=true, maxLength=1000) or suggest when to adjust them. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific email' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (detailed email info). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like outlook_get_event or outlook_get_folder_stats, which also fetch details. The tool retrieves a single email, which is distinct from list/search, but not explicitly noted.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as outlook_list_emails or outlook_search_emails. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a messageId) or when not to use it (e.g., for bulk operations). The description leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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