Pilot MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It does not explain return format, pagination, rate limits, search result ordering, or what constitutes a match (exact vs. partial, case sensitivity).

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?

While brief (3 words), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It fails the 'every sentence must earn its place' standard by providing no actionable information beyond the tool name itself.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema and an empty input schema, the description fails to compensate by explaining default search behavior, result limits, or how to formulate queries. It leaves critical gaps in understanding how to invoke or interpret results from this tool.

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. Per evaluation rules, the baseline score for tools with no parameters is 4. The description neither adds nor subtracts value regarding parameters since none exist to document.

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 'Search Outlook emails' is tautological, merely restating the tool name with spaces. It fails to specify search scope (subject, body, sender), available filters, or how it differs from siblings like 'search_emails' (generic) or 'outlook_list_emails' (likely unfiltered retrieval).

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus 'search_emails', 'outlook_list_emails', or 'read_email'. No mention of prerequisites, authentication requirements, or query syntax.

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