search_contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the search action and searchable fields, without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, side effects, authentication requirements, or edge cases like no results. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. There is zero waste, and every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 tool with three parameters (one required) and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the optional parameters, return format expectations, or any usage nuances. Even with an output schema present, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter by listing the fields it can match, but provides no detail on matching semantics (e.g., substring, exact). It completely omits 'max_results' and 'max_folders_depth', leaving their purpose ambiguous. The description adds partial value but fails to document two of three parameters.

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 action (search), the resource (local Outlook contact folders), and the specific fields (name, email, company, or job title). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_email, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for finding contacts but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_email, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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