outlook_list_inbox_overrides

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds real conceptual value by explaining that an override forces a sender into Focused or Other regardless of Graph's inference, which is non-obvious domain semantics. It stops short of describing the returned record shape, ordering, or what an empty result means, so it is a solid but not rich addition over the annotation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by only the definitional context an agent needs to interpret the result. No filler.

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 no-param, read-only list with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually. The only gap is that it does not sketch the returned fields (sender plus routing target) or confirm behavior when no overrides exist — minor for this complexity level.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no documentation burden and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to disambiguate inputs.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List the user's Focused Inbox per-sender override rules') and the second sentence pins down what an override actually is. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as outlook_list_inbox, outlook_set_inbox_override and outlook_delete_inbox_override, though it never explicitly names them.

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 implied by the resource name — an agent should call this when it needs to know the current sender-based routing rules — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of pairing with outlook_set_inbox_override to change a rule, and no note on whether this is a prerequisite for reclassification decisions.

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