outlook_read_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the behavior of 'format' (text/html/full), 'include_deferred_send' (adds scheduled-send time), and 'concise' (drops body fields, returns preview). It does not mention error handling or side effects, which is acceptable for a read operation.

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 very concise, with the main action in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add precise parameter information without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior for a read tool. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the full set of returned fields, but it adequately explains the variations in output based on parameters.

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%, but the description fully compensates. It explains the meaning of all three optional parameters: 'format' values, 'include_deferred_send' adds delayed send time, 'concise' reduces token count. The required 'message_id' is self-explanatory.

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's purpose: 'Get one full message by ID.' It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'outlook_read_messages' by specifying 'one' message. The verb 'Get' and resource 'full message' are specific.

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?

The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'outlook_search_mail' or 'outlook_list_inbox'. It provides usage hints for optional parameters (e.g., 'concise=True for triage scans') but fails to compare with siblings or state prerequisites.

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