outlook_whoami

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. In the absence of an output schema, the description's one added behavioral fact is the shape of the return payload (display name, email, ID), which is genuinely useful; it says nothing about what happens when unauthenticated or on token failure.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource and ending with the concrete return fields. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 trivial, parameterless identity read with readOnlyHint covering safety and no output schema, naming the returned fields largely satisfies the description's burden. A note on behavior when no valid credential exists would close the remaining gap.

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 and the description correctly offers none, so there is nothing to mis-specify. Baseline of 4 for a 0-param tool applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get the authenticated user's profile') with the returned fields enumerated in parentheses. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling outlook_auth_status, which plausibly overlaps in telling the caller about the current session/user.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must be authenticated), and no mention of outlook_auth_status as a related or alternative tool. The agent must infer the use case from the word 'authenticated' alone.

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