outlook_status

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

Annotations already disclose the read-only, non-destructive, open-world safety profile, yet the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the return payload is limited to 'safe diagnostics and counts' with no mailbox names or message contents, and the tool functions even with Outlook closed. These privacy and availability traits are genuine disclosures, though response format specifics are left to the output schema.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: capability first, output/privacy second, availability precondition third. No filler, no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic with an output schema, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: what is inspected, that the output is sanitized, and the prerequisite state of Outlook. Return-value detail is correctly delegated to the output 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly adds no parameter narrative, which is appropriate 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 names a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates the exact resources inspected: Windows, classic Outlook, the running profile, and the connection. This clearly separates it from the mailbox/email-reading siblings, though it does not name them explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives concrete conditions: the tool works even when Outlook is closed, and the agent should open Outlook and resolve pending dialogs first. That is real operational guidance, but it never states when to prefer this over a sibling or what to do after a failed check, so no explicit alternative routing exists.

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