outlook_list_inbox_delta

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the description. The description further explains behavior around tombstones (is_deleted) and pagination (has_more), giving the agent a clear mental model of the response semantics.

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 compact and well-structured, with every sentence serving a purpose: usage guidance, example, and pagination semantics. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers the essential delta and pagination behavior despite the lack of an output schema. It could be slightly more complete by describing the return items more explicitly, but the core usage is fully understandable.

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 description explains delta_token's role through the example, but folder and page_size are not described beyond their schema titles/defaults. Since schema description coverage is 0%, more parameter-level detail would be beneficial.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists inbox changes since the last call, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from outlook_list_inbox by noting cost and appropriate use cases.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (polling/recurring) versus outlook_list_inbox (one-shot snapshots). Provides a concrete usage example for the first and subsequent calls, plus pagination instructions via has_more and delta_token.

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