outlook_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it returns only 'safe diagnostics and counts' with no mailbox names or message contents (a privacy guarantee), and it functions while Outlook is closed. That is useful context beyond the annotation block, though it says nothing about latency or repeated-call behavior.

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, no padding, and the core purpose leads. The privacy constraint and the availability caveat each carry distinct information, so every clause earns its place.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it doesn't. It covers the remaining unknowns — scope of the check, privacy of output, and behavior when Outlook is not running — so nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing parameter talk that would be noise here.

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 (Check) and a precise scope (Windows, classic Outlook, running profile, connection) that no sibling tool covers — the siblings are all mailbox/content readers. It further disambiguates by stating what it does NOT return (no mailbox names or message contents), so an agent can tell it apart from list_mailboxes or read_email immediately.

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 supplies a real usage precondition: 'Available even when Outlook is closed; open Outlook and resolve pending dialogs first.' That tells the agent the tool is safe to call in a down state and what to do to get better results. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, but no sibling tool serves the same diagnostic purpose, so the gap is minor.

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