list-contact-folder-child-folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by stating it returns specified fields, supports $filter/$top/$orderby, and warns that contact folders are usually flat—context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations, but could mention pagination behavior more explicitly, though parameters already cover that.

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 composed of two sentences plus a tip. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds a helpful usage tip and a note about flat folders. It is concise without unnecessary fluff, though the tip could be slightly trimmed to be even more direct.

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 the tool has 12 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it tells the agent what it returns, how to traverse from top-level folders, and what OData capabilities exist. It does not explain error conditions or edge cases like empty results, but that's minor given the read-only nature and parameter documentation. It feels complete enough for safe invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 12 parameters, including the required contactFolderId. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides—it only mentions supported OData operators. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get a collection of child folders under the specified contact folder.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list-contact-folders (top-level) and list-contact-folder-contacts (contacts, not folders) by focusing on child folders and even mentioning returned fields (id, displayName, parentFolderId).

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 tip explicitly says to use list-contact-folders to discover top-level folders, then this tool to traverse one level deeper. This provides a clear when-to-use and routes the agent to the correct sibling. It also notes that Outlook typically keeps folders flat but Graph allows nesting, which sets expectations for when this tool is relevant.

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