outlook-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe read operation with limited scope. The description adds useful context about capabilities (delta sync, KQL, conversation listing) and the fallback to list mode, which helps the agent understand behavioral options. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed pagination behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then efficiently lists key capabilities in a single sentence. Every phrase ('search queries, KQL, delta sync, message-id lookup, and conversation listing') adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (20 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description provides a good overview of capabilities and fallback behavior. It covers the main use cases (search, list, delta sync, conversation view) but could better explain output structure or error handling. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at return format, though it's not critical here.

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%, so the input schema fully documents all 20 parameters. The description mentions key parameters like 'query', 'KQL', 'delta sync', and 'conversationId', but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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: 'Search and list emails.' It specifies the verb (search/list) and resource (emails), and mentions multiple capabilities like KQL, delta sync, and conversation listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read-email' or 'list-events' beyond mentioning 'list-emails' as a comparison.

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 some usage context: 'With no query, lists recent emails (like list-emails)' and mentions various search modes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read-email' or 'search-people', nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites for specific modes like delta sync.

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