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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns 'full details' and points to how to source the ID, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or required auth permissions. This is acceptable for a simple get-by-ID tool, but not exceptional.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It avoids repetition of title and schema details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only get-by-ID tool with an output schema (mentioned in context signals), one required parameter, and a clear source for that parameter, the description is complete. The presence of an output schema means the return structure is already specified, so the description doesn't need to elaborate.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'id' parameter ('Contact ID from m365_list_contacts or m365_search_contacts'). The tool description repeats exactly that information without adding new semantics or examples, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('full details of a specific Microsoft 365 contact by ID'), and the mechanism for obtaining the ID from sibling tools. It is specific and distinguishes itself from generic contact tools like 'get_contact' and 'search_contacts' by explicitly scoping to Microsoft 365.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: after obtaining an ID from m365_list_contacts or m365_search_contacts. This implies a workflow and gives clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative lookups (e.g., by email/UPN).

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