outlook_search

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 adds the useful detail that KQL syntax is supported, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, any pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotation safety hints, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Search Outlook messages') and includes a concrete example of KQL syntax. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the search returns and any behavioral caveats. It does not mention the result format, ordering, folder scope, or error conditions. The KQL note is helpful, but the description remains too minimal to be fully contextual for a search tool with this complexity.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description's KQL example ('from:name subject:topic') adds marginal reinforcement to the query parameter description already present in the schema, but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 'Search Outlook messages' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like calendar_search and contacts_search by targeting Outlook messages specifically. The mention of KQL syntax also adds clarifying detail, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage for searching Outlook messages but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. While the resource is clear, there is no direct comparison to outlook_read (which reads a single message) or other search tools, leaving the guidance 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.