outlook-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation with limited scope. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying 'upcoming events' (implying time-based filtering) but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'upcoming' means (e.g., timeframe). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted text.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter), high schema coverage, and annotations covering safety and scope, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., event format, fields), leaving a gap in completeness for a listing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'count' fully documented in the schema (type, default, max). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('upcoming events from your calendar'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling calendar tools (like 'create-event' or 'manage-event') by specifying scope or limitations beyond 'upcoming'.

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. With sibling tools like 'search-emails' and 'read-email' that might overlap in calendar contexts, there's no indication of when this listing tool is preferred over search or management functions for calendar events.

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