outlook_get_task

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: checklist_items are returned ordered unchecked-first 'matching the To Do client', and list_id is only needed for non-default lists. It stops short of covering failure modes (e.g., behavior when task_id is not found).

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the returned-field list front-loaded before the usage routing and the list_id caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields (body/notes, checklist items, due, recurrence flag), which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It covers the required task_id implicitly and the optional list_id explicitly; only a note on error behavior or task_id format is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It successfully explains list_id's conditional nature ('only needed when the task lives in a non-default list'), which is genuine added meaning, but task_id is left entirely unexplained. One of two parameters is covered, so it is only partial compensation.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (To Do task details) and enumerates the returned fields: notes/body, checklist items, due, recurrence flag. It explicitly names outlook_list_tasks as the overview alternative, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear routing: use this for one task's sub-steps and notes, use outlook_list_tasks for overviews. It covers when-to-use and one named alternative, but does not address other task siblings such as outlook_update_task or outlook_complete_task, so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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