outlook_list_inbox

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: concise=True drops large fields for ~10x token savings, uncategorized_only filtering, and the accepted forms for `folder`. It stops short of describing pagination/cursor behavior or default page size, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before routing guidance, examples, and parameter notes; each sentence carries distinct information. It is somewhat long, but no line is padding given the 0% schema coverage it must compensate for.

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 an 11-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers routing, token-cost tradeoffs, filter semantics, and date formats well. The notable omission is pagination behavior (cursor/skip) and any statement about result ordering or limits, which an agent browsing large folders would need.

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 and largely meets it: it clarifies `folder` accepted formats, the effect of concise and uncategorized_only, and the ISO 8601/relative-offset semantics of after/before. However cursor, skip, from_address, and classification receive no explanation, leaving several of the 11 params undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource (list messages) plus its scope constraint (one folder) and the filter dimensions it supports (read, sender, date, category, Focused). It explicitly names sibling tools it is not (outlook_search_mail for cross-folder full-text, outlook_list_inbox_delta for polling), so an agent can distinguish it without reading schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use routing: folder-scoped browsing vs outlook_search_mail for KQL search across all folders, and a concrete condition for choosing outlook_list_inbox_delta (polling/recurring agents, ~10x cheaper after first call). Includes a worked example invocation.

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