outlook_contacts_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only supplies one sentence. 'Searches' implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of which accounts are scanned, how results are ranked or paged, or what the response contains.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise for a search tool.

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 search tool with no annotations, an empty parameter schema, and no output schema, the description does far too little. It never explains how to supply the search terms the schema does not expose, nor what a result looks like, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it.

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 exposes zero parameters, which normally gives a baseline of 4, but the description claims search criteria (name, email, company) that the empty schema cannot accept. That mismatch leaves the agent unsure whether the criteria are callable inputs or just descriptive, so it lands below the 0-param baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Searches) and resource (contacts in Microsoft Outlook) plus the intended search facets (name, email, company). However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as m365_search_contacts, search_contacts, or outlook_contacts_list, leaving the agent to guess which search surface to pick.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternatives. With siblings like outlook_contacts_list and outlook_get_contact directly adjacent, an explicit rule (e.g. 'use list to browse, get to fetch by id') is needed but absent.

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