outlook_list_accounts

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 that only 'configured' accounts are returned, which implies a read-only, environment-dependent operation, but says nothing about required Outlook setup, ordering, or failure behavior. It is adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument list operation, though it is so terse that it leaves no room for the behavioral or routing context an agent might need.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more of the definition's weight. For a zero-parameter list tool it is minimally complete, but it omits what the returned account data looks like and how this tool relates to the many sibling account-listing tools.

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 no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the scoring baseline for zero-parameter tools, the schema's emptiness is not a gap the description needs to compensate for.

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 clear verb+resource (lists configured email accounts) and adds an Outlook scope, which is slightly more specific than the generic siblings. However, it does not explain how it differs from siblings such as list_accounts or list_email_accounts, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when to prefer this over list_accounts or list_email_accounts. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'configured'.

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