outlook_list_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what order results come in beyond "latest", whether read/unread matters, or whether results are truncated by limit. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves real gaps.

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 short sentence with the key scoping information (newest, inbox) front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the unanswered behavioral questions.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema, no nested objects), so little is required. Still, the description omits sorting guarantee, folder assumptions, and read-only status, which are the few things an agent would want for this call.

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%, and the single optional "limit" parameter is fully documented with a default of 10 in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 gives a specific verb ("Listet") and resource ("E-Mails") with scope qualifiers: newest and inbox-only. That scope distinguishes it somewhat from search-style siblings, but it never names or contrasts with outlook_search, outlook_bulk_list, or outlook_read_email, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus outlook_search, outlook_bulk_list, or outlook_navigate_folder. The agent must infer that this is the default 'show me what's new' call from the name alone.

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