outlook_search_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search fields (subject or body) but omits read-only status, authentication needs, result limits, pagination, folder scope, and account context.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately communicates the core action and search scope.

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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and input parameters, the description is too sparse for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It does not explain how the keyword is supplied, what results are returned, or when to prefer this tool over sibling search 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 input schema contains zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation to supplement. Per the rubric, zero parameters yield a baseline of 4; the description's mention of a keyword is not backed by any schema input.

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 specific verb (searches), resource (Outlook emails), and search scope (keyword in subject or body). It clearly distinguishes the tool from list/read operations, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling search tools such as search_emails or m365_search_emails.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when searching Outlook emails.

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