outlook_read_messages

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

Discloses bulk batch behavior, hard cap, return shape with partial failures, and parameter consistency with individual read. No annotations provided, so description fully handles transparency.

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?

Concise, well-structured, front-loads key points, includes example, no wasted words.

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?

Covers batch limit, return shape, partial failures, parameter mapping. No output schema, so description provides needed context. Could mention behavior on empty input, but overall complete.

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?

Description mentions format, concise, include_deferred_send and gives example, but does not fully explain each parameter's effect or values. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates.

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 it bulk reads up to 20 messages by ID, and distinguishes from individual calls via 'use NOT N outlook_read_message calls'.

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 recommends this over multiple individual calls, mentions hard cap of 20, and explains partial-failure tolerance. Provides a specific example.

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