outlook_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether this search is read-only (safe), what happens on zero results, whether it searches all folders or just the inbox, or any rate limits. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target surface, and the input mechanism. No waste, and the key information (what it searches and how) comes first.

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 description is minimally adequate for a 2-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema. However, with no annotations and no behavioral context (read-only? scope?), an agent lacks important safety and scope information it can't infer from the schema.

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%, with both `query` and `limit` documented in the schema (limit's default of 10 and query's example terms are all in the schema). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Sucht") and resource ("E-Mails in Outlook Web") and clarifies the search is keyword-based. It doesn't differentiate itself from all siblings (e.g., outlook_list_recent, outlook_bulk_list), but the search-by-keyword scope is clear.

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?

Usage is implied through the search-term examples (Kundenname, Ticketnummer, Absender), but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus outlook_list_recent or outlook_read_email. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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