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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the core action but does not disclose what happens on multiple matches, not-found cases, or whether it searches across all sources. It also lacks any mention of rate limits or permissions. It is not misleading, but adds minimal depth beyond the tool name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word contributes to the purpose. It is an exemplary model of conciseness.

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 simple, one-parameter read tool, the description is adequate in explaining the basic action and result (email or phone). However, it lacks context about when to use this tool instead of lookup_outlook_contact or other search tools, and since there is no output schema, it does not describe the return format in detail. This is a clear gap but not critical for a straightforward lookup.

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 input schema provides only a string parameter 'q' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by clearly indicating that 'q' is the name to search for ('by name'). This clarifies the primary parameter's meaning, though it does not specify formatting (e.g., full vs partial name). Still, it gives significant semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 states the tool performs a lookup of a contact's email or phone by name. The verb 'look up' and resource 'email or phone' are specific, and it is distinguished from siblings like create_contact and lookup_outlook_contact by the lookup behavior and general scope. It could be more explicit about the source (e.g., 'from your contacts'), but it is sufficiently 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like lookup_outlook_contact suggest a more specific variant, but the description does not mention such alternatives or any context where this tool is preferred. The agent receives no exclusionary or selection information.

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