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 only states the search action but does not reveal expected output format, result limits, sort order, or that this is a read-only operation, which is significant for an email search tool.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the essential action. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only a terse description, the tool lacks crucial context such as return value structure, pagination behavior, and whether authentication is required. Given that the tool takes two parameters and performs a search, this level of detail is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 covers the 'query' parameter with an example, but the 'top' parameter lacks any description. The tool description adds only the phrase 'free-text query,' which slightly clarifies the query parameter but does not explain the 'top' parameter's meaning or default behavior, leaving a gap in schema coverage.

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 begins with a specific verb 'search' and clearly identifies the resource as 'mailbox messages.' It also specifies the mechanism ('free-text query'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like outlook_list_emails that likely enumerate messages without a search term.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for keyword-based searching as opposed to listing all emails, nor does it indicate any exclusions or prerequisites such as authentication.

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