outlook_get_email

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the default inclusion of the body, which is useful, but it omits potential error behavior, authentication prerequisites, and the full response structure. The added detail about includeBody provides some value beyond the basic action.

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 that delivers the core action and key default behavior without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple, with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description could be more complete. It does not mention the return format (e.g., which email fields are included beyond body) or any prerequisites like authentication, which are relevant given the sibling authentication tools. It covers the basic purpose but leaves some contextual gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only id has a description). The description adds meaning for includeBody via 'including body by default', which clarifies the parameter's effect. However, it does not compensate for the lack of schema description on includeBody beyond the default, nor does it elaborate on the id parameter beyond the schema's existing explanation.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('a single email'), and the scope ('by id'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list/search tools by focusing on a single item retrieval, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage when a specific email ID is available, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over outlook_list_emails or outlook_search_emails. The schema's id description hints at the source, but the tool description itself offers no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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