outlook_get_mail_tips

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

The description discloses that the tool performs a read-only check (consistent with readOnlyHint annotation) and specifies the type of information returned. No contradictions with annotations. It adds context beyond the annotation by detailing the check results.

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 that concisely conveys the tool's purpose and behavior. Every word adds value, with no filler 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?

Given the simple input (one array parameter) and readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately explains the tool's function. It could optionally mention that tips are returned per email, but the current description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has one required parameter, 'emails', with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'recipients' but does not explicitly name the parameter or add meaning about its format (e.g., array of email addresses). The single parameter is somewhat obvious, but the description fails to clarify the expected input structure.

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 is for a 'pre-send check' for recipients, listing specific types of mail tips (out-of-office, delivery limits, mailbox-full warnings). This is a distinct purpose that separates it from sibling tools, which involve reading, drafting, or sending messages.

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 before sending emails to check recipient status. It indicates context ('pre-send') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. However, among sibling tools, sending tools are present, providing indirect guidance.

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