outlook_auth_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this tool is non-destructive, and the description aligns with that by saying 'Check.' The added remediation tip ('Run `outlook-mcp auth` on the host if needed') provides mild extra context about behavior when auth is missing, but no deep detail.

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 one short sentence plus a concise remediation command. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff 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 simple no-parameter status check, the description is mostly complete: it states what the tool does and what to do if auth is needed. It does not specify the exact output shape, but with no output schema and a simple status check, that is not a critical omission.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is complete by default. The description adds nothing about parameters, but with zero parameters the baseline score of 4 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 verb 'Check' clearly identifies a read-only status operation, and 'authentication status' is a specific resource. No sibling tool appears to overlap with this purpose.

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 notes that if auth is needed, the agent should run `outlook-mcp auth` on the host, which provides actionable remediation guidance. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, but the purpose is distinct enough that this is not a major gap.

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