outlook_read_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious trait: it auto-scrolls through the folder until the conversation is found, implying UI navigation side effects. But it omits whether reading alters folder/view state, what happens if the conversation is not found, and any auth/permission needs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the lookup/discovery behavior. No filler, though the parenthetical '(Markdown)' and '(data-convid aus bulk_list)' stack a lot of detail into one sentence.

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 UI-driven read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return (Markdown in the reading pane) and the search-until-found behavior. It is still missing the differentiation from outlook_get_email and the failure/edge behavior, leaving the agent with meaningful unknowns.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds only that the id is a conversation-ID sourced from bulk_list and that folder scopes the read, which largely restates the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Liest eine E-Mail vollständig im Lesebereich (Markdown) an') with a clear scope (full read, Markdown, reading pane). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool outlook_get_email, which an agent would reasonably assume reads an email too.

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?

It helpfully says the id comes from bulk_list ('data-convid aus bulk_list'), giving some usage context. But it never states when to use this versus outlook_get_email or outlook_search, so the agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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