Outlook Assistant

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not open-world, and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what each action does (OAuth flow, server info display) and mentions the 'force' parameter's conditional use. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements beyond OAuth, or error behaviors, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely efficient - a single sentence that clearly explains the tool's purpose and all three actions with their functions. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no wasted verbiage.

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 an authentication tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic functionality but lacks details about return values, error conditions, or what specific information 'about' provides. Given the importance of authentication in API interactions, more completeness would be helpful despite the good annotations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds some value by explaining the purpose of each action and noting that 'force' only applies to authenticate, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose as 'Manage authentication with Microsoft Graph API' and specifies three distinct actions (status, authenticate, about) with their functions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on email, calendar, contacts, and other Microsoft Graph operations rather than authentication management.

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 clear context for when to use each action (check auth state, start OAuth flow, show server info) and includes a default behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives for authentication management, which prevents a perfect score.

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