outlook_list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully relies on text to convey behavior. It correctly implies a read-only list operation but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, mention permissions, or describe the response format. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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, well-front-loaded sentence. It wastes no words and immediately states the action and scope. Every part earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at what the tool returns. It mentions 'authentication status' but does not specify the format (e.g., list of emails with boolean status). The tool is simple, but the description could be more precise to match the completeness of typical list tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers all possibilities. The description does not need to add parameter info. It receives baseline score 4 as per the guidance for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all configured Outlook accounts' along with what is shown ('authentication status'). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like 'outlook_auth_status' or 'outlook_whoami'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain how it differs from 'outlook_auth_status' or when one should prefer this over others. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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