outlook_list_accounts

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

The description adds that the tool returns authentication status, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, the annotation already declares the tool as read-only, and the description does not disclose additional behavioral traits like potential delays or side effects. The added value is modest.

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?

A single sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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, parameterless list tool, the description is adequate. It explains the output (accounts and auth status), which suffices for basic understanding. No output schema exists, so additional detail on return format could be beneficial but is not critical.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (accounts and authentication status), which is helpful for an agent.

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 lists all configured Outlook accounts and their authentication status, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('accounts'). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on other operations like sending drafts or managing contacts.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given the tool has no parameters and lists accounts, the intended use is straightforward. Sibling tools like outlook_switch_account imply a different purpose, but exclusion criteria are not stated.

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