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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. Description adds crucial behavioral details: $select fails with a specific error, use $expand to include linked resources, returns HTML body content, checklist items, and linked resources. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding beyond 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?

Front-loaded with purpose statement. Includes a helpful tip section. Minor redundancy: 'Returns a single To Do task' repeats the purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but overall well-structured.

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?

Despite no output schema, description specifies return content (HTML, checklist items, linked resources). Warns about an error-prone parameter ($select). Covers key aspects for a read operation. Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint) complement well.

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% with parameter descriptions. Description adds critical meaning for the 'select' and 'expand' parameters (warning on $select, recommendation for $expand), which is not evident from schema alone. Other parameters are adequately described in schema.

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?

Clearly states the action 'Read' and the resource 'todoTask object'. Differentiates from sibling 'list-todo-tasks' which lists multiple tasks, as it returns a single task.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on what not to use ($select causes error) and what to use instead ($expand for linked resources). Implies it is for retrieving a single task, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'list-todo-tasks' or 'list-todo-linked-resources'.

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

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the valuable context that the tool reflects accounts added mid-session via --login. This is meaningful dynamic behavior beyond what the schema or annotations convey.

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 two short sentences: the first states the core function, the second states its primary purpose and a dynamic behavior. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 a zero-parameter list tool with readOnlyHint, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is listed, why to call it, and that it stays current with mid-session account additions.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is correspondingly empty, so there is no parameter meaning to add. The description appropriately focuses on the result, which is the full set of configured account emails.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List all Microsoft accounts configured in this server') and immediately distinguishes this from account-management siblings like login, logout, select-account, and remove-account. The intent is 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover available account emails before making tool calls.' This is clear context, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the output structure (displayName, webUrl, etc.) and a tip, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination limits or authentication requirements 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 two short paragraphs plus a tip, front-loading the core purpose. It is efficient but the tip could be integrated into the main text to reduce repetition. No unnecessary sentences.

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 13 parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the purpose and output structure. The tip aids completeness. However, a more comprehensive overview of pagination and filtering behavior would improve completeness.

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% with all parameters described. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only provides a tip about output fields. Following the rule, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool gets information about linked resources for a specified task, using specific terms like 'linkedResource object' and listing fields such as externalId and deep link. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-todo-task or list-todo-tasks.

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 implies the tool is for listing linked resources, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling context suggests uniqueness, but no explicit direction is given.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral details: the $select parameter is unsupported and causes a 400 error, and the default list is named 'Tasks'. It does not cover pagination or response structure, but the added notes are significant for proper usage.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It uses efficient formatting (tip, note) to convey key information without excess verbiage. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, required ID, and a critical limitation ($select). It lacks details on pagination or response format, but the schema compensates for many gaps. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a well-documented schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters, so the description carries little additional parameter semantics. It only indirectly references the $select parameter, which is already well-documented in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a list of todoTaskList objects and their properties, and explicitly mentions it returns the ID needed for other operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-todo-tasks (which lists tasks within a list) and get-todo-task (single task), making its purpose 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?

The description provides context for using the tool to obtain the todoTaskList-id for subsequent operations, and warns against passing the $select parameter. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like list-todo-tasks or list-todo-linked-resources, so usage differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that $select is not supported and will cause a 400 error, which is critical behavioral information. Annotations already indicate read-only, but the description adds valuable context about API limitations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a tip block with practical advice. Every sentence adds value, though a more structured layout could improve readability.

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 complexity (12 params, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: obtaining the required parameter, limitations, filtering, and pagination. It is reasonably complete for an AI agent, though it could mention pagination via nextLink explicitly.

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 input schema covers all 12 parameters with descriptions, and the description adds extra meaning: it clarifies the unsupported $select, provides example filter values, and mentions status enum values. This significantly enhances understanding beyond schema.

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 retrieves todoTask resources for a specified todoTaskList, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list-todo-task-lists and get-todo-task.

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 explicit usage guidance: requires todoTaskList-id (obtained via sibling tool), warns against using $select (returns 400), and recommends filters and $top. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but is otherwise clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Authenticate with Microsoft account.' It does not mention side effects like establishing a session, whether user interaction (e.g., browser prompt) is required, or how the 'force' parameter affects behavior. The parameter is mentioned in the schema but not integrated into the tool's behavioral description.

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, succinct sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structured presentation of key aspects (e.g., side effects, usage), so it is very concise but not well structured for complex information.

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 that likely has significant side effects and requires user interaction, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what happens after authentication, return values, or the effect of the 'force' parameter in context. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks essential context to predict outcomes.

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 provides complete documentation for the single 'force' parameter (coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 'Authenticate with Microsoft account' clearly states the verb (authenticate) and resource (Microsoft account). It distinguishes from siblings like verify-login (which checks status) and logout (which ends session), though it does not elaborate on the specific outcome (e.g., establishing a session or obtaining tokens).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related authentication tools such as verify-login, select-account, or remove-account. The description does not mention typical call scenarios, prerequisites, or when the 'force' parameter is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining side effects such as token invalidation, whether it affects all sessions, or if it is permanent. This lack of detail leaves an agent uncertain about the consequences.

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, clear clause with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple, parameterless action, though it could benefit from a sentence about behavior or usage context without becoming verbose.

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 a simple logout action with no parameters or output schema, the description provides the essential action but lacks context about the result (e.g., does it invalidate tokens? clear local state?). It is sufficient for basic invocation but leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers them (100% coverage). The description correctly adds no parameter information because none exist, meeting the baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools.

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 action ('Log out') and the resource ('Microsoft account'), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'remove-account' or 'login', but the verb and resource are specific enough that the intent is clear.

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 such as 'remove-account' or 'login'. It does not mention context like ending a session before switching accounts, nor does it explain differences from related sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (removing from cache) but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether it invalidates tokens, requires re-authentication, or affects active sessions). For a simple cache operation, this is minimally acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and input format, followed by a useful usage hint. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what it does, what input to provide, and how to find that input. It could mention post-removal consequences, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 a clear parameter description ('Email address or account ID of the account to remove'). The tool description adds value by providing an example format (user@outlook.com) and a discovery hint (list-accounts), going beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Remove a Microsoft account from the cache') and specifies the accepted input format (email or account ID). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list-accounts and select-account by focusing on cache removal.

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 tells the agent to use list-accounts to discover available accounts, providing a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., versus logout), but the context of cache removal is inferred, making this adequate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action 'select as default,' which implies a persistent state change, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the previous default is replaced, whether authentication is required, or if the change is reversible). For a state-modifying tool with no annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap—not misleading, but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by accepted formats and a pointed reference to a sibling. Every word earns its place.

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 a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, accepted input, and a discovery path. There are no nested objects or complex edge cases to disclose, so it is complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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% (the parameter description already states 'Email address or account ID'). The description adds a concrete example (user@outlook.com) and a discovery mechanism (use list-accounts), which goes slightly beyond the schema. It adds value by giving the agent a way to find valid values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Select a Microsoft account as the default.' It also specifies the accepted identifier forms (email or account ID) and provides a concrete example. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list-accounts (which discovers) and logout (which ends a session).

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 says to use list-accounts to discover available accounts, which routes the agent to the right discovery tool. However, it does not state when not to use this tool (e.g., when needing to log in or out) or list alternatives beyond list-accounts. The guidance is clear for the typical flow but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'check', implying a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not mention dependencies (e.g., requires an active session) or what happens if the user is not authenticated. The description adds no detail beyond the verb.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action word 'Check'. There is zero wasted wording, and it is immediately understandable.

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 a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose. However, it does not mention what the expected outcome is (e.g., returns a boolean or status object), which could leave an agent uncertain about how to interpret the result. Some additional detail about the return value would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters that don't exist.

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 'Check current Microsoft authentication status' clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'current Microsoft authentication status'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'login' and 'logout' by focusing on verification rather than initiating or terminating a session.

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. It does not mention that it should be used to confirm authentication before other operations, nor does it contrast with 'login' or 'logout'. The context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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