resolve_recipients

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary function but does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, potential failure modes, or any side effects. The brief sentence offers no additional insight beyond the basic purpose.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no redundant information, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

Although there is an output schema (not provided), the description gives no information about return values, error handling, or prerequisites. For a tool without annotations, this level of detail is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke it and interpret results correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'recipients', and the description does not explicitly explain its expected format or content. While 'resolve names, emails, or distribution lists' implies the input can be these types, it does not clarify whether a string or array is acceptable, or how multiple recipients are handled.

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 clearly states the action (resolve), the resource (names, emails, distribution lists), and the context (Outlook's address book/GAL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_contacts, which likely searches for contacts rather than resolving them into canonical addresses.

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 implies a use case—resolving recipient identifiers against the GAL—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as search_contacts or infer_leave_recipients. No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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