get-outlook-contact

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's claim of 'retrieve' is consistent. However, it adds no further behavioral details (e.g., permissions, error handling, or response structure), which is acceptable but not excellent given the presence of annotations.

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 very short but suffers from an incomplete sentence (ends abruptly after 'There are two scenarios...'), making it seem unfinished. True conciseness would be complete without extraneous content.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits details on return values, pagination, filtering, and the two promised scenarios. The tool is moderately complex and requires more context for proper agent usage.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but this is unnecessary since the schema already provides adequate semantics. The baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves properties and relationships of a contact object, which is clear and specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list-outlook-contacts, and the incomplete sentence about two scenarios adds confusion.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-outlook-contacts or create-outlook-contact. The description hints at two scenarios but does not elaborate, providing no clear usage context.

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