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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action itself. It does not mention required fields, duplicate handling, permissions, or any side effects, leaving the agent without important context for a mutating operation.

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?

The description is a single, succinct sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and easily parsed, earning full marks for conciseness even though it is minimal.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool definition is incomplete for an agent to make a confident decision. It lacks usage context, parameter details, and behavioral caveats, making it only barely sufficient for a very simple tool.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on any of the four parameters. Although parameter names like 'email' and 'company' are somewhat self-explanatory, the tool definition fails to provide any semantic detail or format expectations, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly specifies the action ('Create') and the resource ('new Outlook contact'), and the 'Outlook' qualifier distinguishes it from generic contact tools like create_contact or hubspot_create_contact. It is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_contact, lookup_outlook_contact, or update_contact. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose this tool.

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