list_outlook_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: it does not read message bodies and does not call the embedding API, which tells the agent this is a cheap, side-effect-free probe. It further discloses that pending folders require a separate sync call and that disconnected PSTs are outside its reach.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct payload: what it inspects, what it avoids doing, how to cross-check with index_status, and how to remediate pending folders. The scope statement is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the whole burden, and it does: it names the entities returned (stores, PST archives, folders, index coverage) and the two behavioral limits (no body reads, no embedding calls). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret an empty result 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no per-parameter semantics to document. The folders and since_days values mentioned belong to the sibling sync_index call, but they are correctly framed as a follow-up action rather than as inputs here, so they add routing value without misrepresenting the schema.

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 and resource ('Inspect ALL currently connected Outlook stores') and enumerates the returned scope: PST archives, folders, and local index coverage. The 'ALL' emphasis and the PST-archive mention let an agent distinguish this inventory tool from search_emails and get_indexed_mail without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing instructions: compare with index_status before declaring no mail found, and use folders=['auto'], since_days=0 to sync pending folders. It also names an exclusion — disconnected PSTs cannot be inspected through Outlook — so the agent knows the boundary condition rather than inferring it.

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