outlook_search_mail

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

The description explains search scope, query language, and the concise option reducing token usage. However, it does not mention pagination via the cursor parameter or explicitly state it is read-only, though that is implicit.

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 concise with two paragraphs and an example. It front-loads purpose and includes only essential details without redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should cover return values; it mentions dropped fields with concise but not the full return structure. It also omits explanation for count and cursor parameters, leaving gaps for effective usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains query (KQL syntax, example), folder, and concise. But count and cursor parameters lack any explanation; count's default is 25 but no details, cursor is not described despite being important for pagination.

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 it performs full-text search with KQL across all folders or a single folder, distinguishing it from the sibling tool outlook_list_inbox which handles structured filters scoped to a single folder.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('find emails about X') and when to use the alternative (outlook_list_inbox for structured filters). It also provides an example with realistic query syntax.

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