get-mail-tips

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

The description states it is read-only and uses existing Mail.Read scope, consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint: true). It discloses the types of tips returned (automatic replies, mailbox full, etc.) and refers to the Graph endpoint. No contradictions. Slightly lacking in rate limit or error details, but the annotation carries the safety profile, and description adds valuable 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, well-organized paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose and API endpoint, then details return content and usage guidance. It is concise with no unnecessary words, though a bit dense. Loses one point for not being broken into shorter sentences or sections.

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 tool has only 2 parameters (both documented with 100% schema coverage), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is fully complete. It explains the return content (list of per-recipient tips with specific items), the use case (pre-send validation), and the relationship to sibling tools. No 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning: it explains that recipients can be 'a comma-separated string or an array of addresses', and that 'tipTypes filters which tips are requested (defaults to all)'. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, which only state 'Email addresses to check' and 'Comma-separated tip types'.

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: 'Pre-send recipient validation via Graph POST /me/getMailTips'. It identifies the specific verb (get) and resource (mail tips), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'send-email' and 'draft' by noting that those tools can invoke this automatically via checkRecipients: true.

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 explicitly says 'Use ahead of send-email or draft action=create to catch issues like OOO replies or external-recipient warnings before the message goes out'. It also mentions that 'send-email/draft accept checkRecipients: true to invoke this automatically', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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