get-mail-tips

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that despite using POST, the operation is read-only and requires no additional permissions ('uses the existing Mail.Read scope — no extra permissions'). It also details what the tool returns (automatic replies, mailbox full status, custom tips, etc.), adding behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 dense but well-structured: it starts with the core purpose and Graph endpoint, then details return contents, usage guidance, and parameter behavior. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or fluff, making it concise yet comprehensive.

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's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers all essential context: what it does, when to use it, alternatives, parameter formats, default behavior, and the types of tips returned. It fully prepares an agent to use the tool correctly without needing additional external knowledge.

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 already provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including detailed descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the dual input format ('Accepts either a comma-separated string or an array of addresses') and the default behavior of tipTypes ('defaults to all'), which goes beyond the schema's static 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 'Pre-send recipient validation via Graph POST /me/getMailTips' and distinguishes it from siblings like send-email and draft by framing it as a pre-check. It names the resource and the exact operation, making it 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?

Explicitly states when to use: '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 an alternative: 'send-email/draft accept checkRecipients: true to invoke this automatically,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs relying on built-in checks.

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