outlook_get_mail_tips

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of information retrieved (out-of-office, delivery limits, mailbox-full), but does not state whether the tool modifies any state or if it is read-only. The behavioral traits are partially covered.

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, compact sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description covers the core functionality but omits details about the return format, possible additional mail tips, or error cases. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 single required parameter 'emails' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds context by mentioning 'recipients', indicating that the parameter specifies the target email addresses. However, it does not clarify expected format, validation, or constraints beyond that.

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 specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('mail tips for recipients'), and lists examples (out-of-office, delivery limits, mailbox-full warnings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'outlook_read_message' or 'outlook_search_mail' which serve different purposes.

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 phrase 'Pre-send check' implies use before sending an email, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites. 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.