outlook_list_drafts

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context; it adds that results are cursor-paginated. It does not disclose sort order, whether drafts include their attachment/recipient summaries, or how the count default of 25 behaves at the boundary.

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 twelve-word sentence with the resource stated first and the pagination trait appended. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and light annotations, the missing pieces are what a returned draft record looks like and how to detect the last page. The definition is adequate to call the tool but not to use the results confidently.

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 must carry the parameter burden, and it only partially does: 'cursor pagination' hints that cursor is an opaque continuation token. The count parameter (default 25, no stated maximum or ordering semantics) is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (List) and resource (messages in the Drafts folder), so an agent can distinguish it from outlook_list_inbox and outlook_search_mail by folder scope. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource scope: an agent can infer this is the enumeration step before outlook_update_draft, outlook_send_draft, or outlook_delete_draft, but no sentence says so. There are no explicit when/when-not conditions or named alternatives such as search_mail.

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