outlook_get_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds genuine value by naming the extraction surface (Markdown, Teams links, metadata), which tells the agent what comes back. It still omits whether authentication/session state is required (a sibling 'outlook_login' exists) and whether the read has any side effects such as marking mail as read or advancing the reading pane.

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 compact sentence with the payload enumeration up front and the default-index behavior trailing, which is the right ordering. Minimal waste, though the parenthetical list is slightly dense and the index clause is largely redundant with the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the returned content (Markdown, Teams links, metadata), so the agent knows what to expect. Both parameters are covered by the schema. What is missing is any statement of required session/auth state or how it relates to the near-identical 'outlook_read_email' sibling.

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 100%, so both 'id' and 'index' are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the index-0 default, adding no syntax, precedence rules (what happens if both id and index are supplied), or format details beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Liest eine E-Mail ... vollständig aus') and enumerates the returned payload (Markdown, Teams-Links, Metadaten), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'outlook_read_email', which appears to read an email as well, leaving real overlap unresolved.

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 only usage hint is the default behavior ('Standardmäßig die oberste E-Mail (Index 0)'), which restates the schema default rather than explaining when to pick this tool. No condition selects it over 'outlook_read_email', 'outlook_search', or 'outlook_list_recent', and no prerequisites (e.g. prior login via 'outlook_login') are mentioned.

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