outlook_auth_status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context that the tool may refresh the auth token ('Refresh when possible') and that the returned status is non-secret, which is not covered by annotations. This enriches the behavioral profile.

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 sentence of nine words, conveying all key points: refresh behavior, return of auth status, and non-secret nature. It is front-loaded, direct, and every word earns its place. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It indicates the tool may refresh and returns non-secret status, which is essential context. The output schema handles return value details, so no further elaboration is needed.

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 there are no parameter descriptions to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details. It focuses on the tool's behavior instead.

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 function: return Outlook authentication status, with the additional nuance of refreshing when possible. It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('Outlook authentication status'), and it is distinct from sibling tools that handle emails and calendar events.

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 checking authentication status, which is clear from context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool has a similar purpose, so the usage context is evident. It provides adequate guidance for a niche auth tool.

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