get_all_contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify important details like whether this returns all contacts at once (potential performance implications), pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with large contact lists. The description is too minimal for a tool that could have significant behavioral characteristics.

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 perfectly concise at just 4 words. Every word earns its place: 'Retrieve' specifies the action, 'all' indicates scope, 'contacts' identifies the resource, and 'from Outlook' specifies the system. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and potentially complex behavior (retrieving 'all' contacts could involve pagination, performance considerations, or data volume issues), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what format contacts are returned in, whether there are limitations, or what 'all' actually means in practical terms. The description leaves too many questions unanswered 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema handles the complete parameter documentation.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('all contacts from Outlook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_contact_details' or 'get_all_calendars' beyond the obvious resource difference, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention whether this retrieves a complete list versus filtered results, or when to choose 'get_all_contacts' over 'get_contact_details' for individual contacts. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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