infer_leave_recipients

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

The description explicitly states 'This is read-only,' which is a key behavioral disclosure. It also explains the process: scanning mail for distribution lists and department/team signals, then returning candidates for user confirmation. With no annotations provided, this is a meaningful disclosure, though it does not mention potential performance implications or fallback behavior when no candidates are found.

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 concise, with two short sentences that clearly state purpose and behavior. It front-loads the core purpose and then explains the read-only nature and process. It is not verbose, though it omits parameter information, which is a completeness trade-off rather than a conciseness issue.

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 three parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, yet the description does not explain their semantics. While an output schema exists (which may describe return values), the input parameters are essential for invocation. The description is not complete for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional inference.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the three parameters (folders, max_results, max_items_per_folder), and the description does not mention any of them. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should have compensated but does not, leaving the agent without semantic understanding of how to use the parameters.

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 clear purpose: inferring candidate leave-notification recipients from recent Outlook email. It uses a specific verb ('infer') and resource ('recipients/DLs'), and the phrase 'candidate' and 'leave-notification' distinguish it from sibling tools like resolve_recipients and search_email.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., resolve_recipients, search_email). It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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