11 tools with complete schemas and descriptions present, but significant quality gaps. All tools have descriptions (10-200 chars, mostly German), and input schemas are visible with type definitions. However, descriptions lack LLM-optimized guidance on WHEN to use each tool vs. alternatives. Parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Suchbegriff' without format/constraint hints). No output schemas documented. Error handling is absent, no recovery guidance, no categorization of retryable vs. fatal errors. Tool composition has issues: outlook_get_email and outlook_read_email appear to do similar things (read email by index vs. by conversation-ID), creating ambiguity. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) despite clear risk levels. Naming is verb-first and generally clear, but parameter naming could be more explicit (e.g., 'folder' vs. 'folder_name').

• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g., outlook_search should return {results: [{id, subject, from, date, preview}], total_count, has_more}. This enables LLMs to chain tools and extract the right fields.
• Add enum constraints to folder parameters: {type: 'string', enum: ['inbox', 'sentitems', 'archive', 'deleteditems', 'drafts', 'newsletter']}. Replace free-form descriptions with formal schema constraints.
• Consolidate outlook_get_email and outlook_read_email into a single tool that accepts either index OR conversation-ID, with clear parameter documentation on which to use when.
• Add error recovery guidance: 'If login fails with "MFA required", ensure you complete the MFA prompt in the browser window. If the window closed, call outlook_login again.'
• Add tool annotations to index.js tool registration: readOnlyHint for read tools, destructiveHint for create_draft/close, idempotentHint for status/list operations.